Thread: British health care

Since some in my country (USA) seem to think socialized medicine is the way to go can folks who actually have it speak about it? I want the good and the bad. Some questions:

I keep hearing about death panels - is it true?

(warning before clinking the links below - they are from right wing web sites and those that only get their news from liberal slanted sources might learn what is not being reported)
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/200 ... ealth.html
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/09/de ... th-panels/

How long does it take to get a blood test?

Do those that have preexisting conditions not get other problems cured. Who decides?

(I never heard of this web site before)
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/heal ... lized.html

I heard the British entity that manages health care is the 3rd biggest company in the world. Is this true? If so, why?

What is good about socialized medicine?

Why would I want my health care from the government? They can't even pave the roads.

Keep the insults to yourself. I honestly want to know what is good but also what is bad about socialized medicine. The liberal media here only seems to say good thinks about it. Why do they not tell the whole truth? Please tell me what they are hiding.

Thank you,

Scott

I'll answer your questions from a British perspective.
But bear in mind that France and Scandinavia have a better system. Also free of charge.

Originally Posted by fortheether

I keep hearing about death panels - is it true?
Totally untrue, never heard of it, or any suspicious deaths. Media would be all over it if there was a shred of truth in it. You can safely put that down as propaganda.

How long does it take to get a blood test?
I could have one this afternoon at my local clinic if I wanted to. I'd have to get an emergency appointment though, but it's usually no problem. It's free. Results take a few days depending on what they are checking for.

Do those that have preexisting conditions not get other problems cured. Who decides?
That's the beauty of this. They can't deny you any treatments or checks, ever. If you are ill or have a condition, you get treated. End of story. If they don't continue to treat you as best they can until you die, then they break the law. It's unheard of for somebody to be denied a treatment that they need. You don't have to explain or worry about anything.

I heard the British entity that manages health care is the 3rd biggest company in the world. Is this true? If so, why?
No idea. They try to keep the costs down, but obviously they need to hire a lot of people. The NHS runs almost all hospitals in the entire country. Some of it is outsourced to private staffing companies though. The NHS then contracts the private company that supply cleaners, night-nurses etc on a temporary basis, when they are short of people. But most of the doctors, nurses and other staff are hired directly by the NHS

What is good about socialized medicine?
All medicines cost USD 10. (£6.50) Doesn't matter what the real price is. For children and people who don't work it is completely free. In Sweden you pay for it yourself (at subsidized price) until you have spent USD 100. After that, all medicines are free for the rest of the year. Because Northern European average salaries are a bit higher than US average salaries, the prices for medicines are largely symbolic - unemployed people need to prove that they are unemployed to get the medicine for free.

RARELY there are stories in the press about people who want one particular brand of medicine but their doctor prescribes something else.. Usually this can be sorted out with the doctor, but occassionally the doctor insists on the preferred medicine and won't prescribe the one that the patient prefers. There have been accusations made that this is to save money. It's extremely rare though. Certainly never happened to me or anybody I know.


Why would I want my health care from the government? They can't even pave the roads.
Well then, get rid of that government... 500 million Europeans don't see this as a problem, despite the fact that we have some bumpy roads too. Nobody in Europe is going to preach about this, or to you or try to get you to go our way. It's your country and it's up to you have you want to live. When Europeans complain about the US it's always about things that the US does OUTSIDE it's borders. This is your internal business....

I honestly want to know what is good but also what is bad about socialized medicine. The liberal media here only seems to say good thinks about it. Why do they not tell the whole truth? Please tell me what they are hiding.
They are not hiding anything. Up until now Americans have been tricked into thinking this is bad, when in fact, it isn't. Come and check for yourself. Break your arm in France or get appendicitis in the UK. Despite being American you'll probably be treated completely for free and I doubt that you'll find anything to complain about.

Also bear in mind that the British system is not quite as good as Scandinavia, France and the Benelux countries. There, you'd always get your own room and the food is better at the hospital. Norway has the best healthcare in Europe right now. That said, British healthcare is excellent, there is no reason to complain at all. I have had surgery here and am perfectly content.

If pressed, all I can think of is that in Britain you have to share a room if you are hospitalised. I don't like that. But it's not exactly a serious problem.

There is a short waiting time for certain non-urgent treatments. A few weeks or a month maybe. This is an inconvenience.

I actually HAVE a private health insurance (I don't need it though)/ But the NHS is so good that I never used the private insurance. I forgot about mentioning it to the Dr when I needed surgery.



Thank you,
Scott

You guys have so much right wing media and messages over there... and so much paranoia of everything that might be "socialist", that the people get denied some very good and useful services. Good public transport and healthcare seems to be among those.

But it's not my business what you choose... If Americans want to be at the mercy of a profit-hungry corporation when you are ill.... your problem.

There is profit in healthcare and some powerful interests in your country want to keep it the way it is... Sounds like they are not giving in without a good fight and some heavy-duty scare-mongery or propaganda.

Originally Posted by Johanna

I'll answer your questions from a British perspective.
But bear in mind that France and Scandinavia have a better system. Also free of charge.

Originally Posted by fortheether

I keep hearing about death panels - is it true?
Totally untrue, never heard of it, or any suspicious deaths. Media would be all over it if there was a shred of truth in it. You can safely put that down as propaganda.

How long does it take to get a blood test?
I could have one this afternoon at my local clinic if I wanted to. I'd have to get an emergency appointment though, but it's usually no problem. It's free. Results take a few days depending on what they are checking for.

Do those that have preexisting conditions not get other problems cured. Who decides?
That's the beauty of this. They can't deny you any treatments or checks, ever. If you are ill or have a condition, you get treated. End of story. If they don't continue to treat you as best they can until you die, then they break the law. It's unheard of for somebody to be denied a treatment that they need. You don't have to explain or worry about anything.

(I never heard of this web site before)
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/heal ... lized.html

I heard the British entity that manages health care is the 3rd biggest company in the world. Is this true? If so, why?
No idea. They try to keep the costs down, but obviously they need to hire a lot of people. The NHS runs almost all hospitals in the entire country. Some of it is outsourced to private staffing companies though. The NHS then contracts the private company that supply cleaners, night-nurses etc on a temporary basis, when they are short of people. But most of the doctors, nurses and other staff are hired directly by the NHS

What is good about socialized medicine?
All medicines cost USD 10. (£6.50) Doesn't matter what the real price is. For children and people who don't work it is completely free. In Sweden you pay for it yourself (at subsidized price) until you have spent USD 100. After that all medicines are free for the rest of the year. Because Northern European average salaries are a bit higher than US average salaries, the prices for medicines are largely symbolic - unemployed people need to prove that they are unemployed to get the medicine for free.

RARELY there are stories in the press about people who want one particular brand of medicine but their doctor prescribes something else.. Usually this can be sorted out with the doctor, but occassionally the doctor insists on the preferred medicine. There have been accusations made that this is to save money. It's extremely rare though. Certainly never happened to me or anybody I know.


Why would I want my health care from the government? They can't even pave the roads.
Well then, get rid of that government... 500 million Europeans don't see this as a problem, despite the fact that we have some bumpy roads too. Nobody in Europe is going to preach about this, or to you or try to get you to go our way. It's your country and up to you have you want to live.

Keep the insults to yourself. I honestly want to know what is good but also what is bad about socialized medicine. The liberal media here only seems to say good thinks about it. Why do they not tell the whole truth? Please tell me what they are hiding.
They are not hiding anything. Come and check for yourself. Break your arm in France or get appendicitis in the UK. Despite being American you'll probably be treated completely for free and I doubt that you'll find anything to complain about.

Also bear in mind that the British system is not quite as good as Scandinavia and France (in particular) and the Benelux countries. There, you'd always get your own room and the food is better at the hospital. That said, British healthcare is excellent, there is no reason to complain at all. I have had surgery here and am perfectly content.

If pressed, all I can think of is that in Britain you have to share a room if you are hospitalised. I don't like that. But it's not exactly a serious problem.

There is a short waiting time for certain non-urgent treatments. A few weeks or a month maybe. This is an inconvenience.

I actually HAVE a private health insurance (I don't need it though)/ But the NHS is so good that I never used the private insurance. I forgot about mentioning it to the Dr when I needed surgery.



Thank you,
Scott

You guys have so much right wing media and messages over there... and so much paranoia of everything that might be "socialist", that the people get denied some very good and useful services. Good public transport and healthcare seems to be among those.

But it's not my business what you choose... If Americans want to be at the mercy of a profit-hungry corporation when you are ill.... your problem.

There is profit in healthcare and some powerful interests in your country want to keep it the way it is... Sounds like they are not giving in without a good fight and some heavy-duty scare-mongery or propaganda.

Johanna,
Thank you for your answer. That's a lot to digest. You mentioned the meds are real cheap there. Is the research to make the meds done there or here by profit-hungry corporations? If they are created here and they are driven out of business, who will make the meds? How can a private health care insurance company compete with the government?

How is all this wonderful health care paid for?

Thank you,

Scott

The American congresswhores are setting up "free health care" like this: you buy insurance from a huge company, then you get "free health care."

Originally Posted by fortheether

You mentioned the meds are real cheap there. Is the research to make the meds done there or here by profit-hungry corporations?
Both Europe and the US have pharmaceutical companies, which we know are private corporations driven by profit interests. The NHS buys medicine, as needed, from such companies in HUGE quanties, obviously at discount.. The NHS controls and guarantees the quality of all meds they buy.

The reason that the price is low for the patient is obviously because the state covers the difference between the real purchase price and the £6.50 official price. They use tax money for this.

So yes -- tax payers pay for it. So the burden is spread equally between everyone and it doesn't matter if you have been seriously ill from the day you were born, or if you are never ill. It also doesn't matter if you are rich or poor. Everyone pays the same and everyone gets the same good standard of treatment.

If they are created here and they are driven out of business, who will make the meds? How can a private health care insurance company compete with the government?
Let that take care of itself... If US companies can't compete -- well tough luck, that's exactly what the free market is about, isn't it? HOWEVER: The pharma industry in the US is doing very well and organisations such as the NHS and its equivalents around Europe are their best customers. There is in fact no threat to them.

How is all this wonderful health care paid for?
Taxes. The state has no money of its' own. It is only the keeper and redistributor of the money it collects via taxes. Taxes are not so evil as you might have been led to believe. So long as the state is honest and reasonably efficient you get your money back in the form of the services that the state provides - Education, healthcare, roads, law enforcement, libraries and much more. The better the government, the more they can accomplish with the money.

In the area of healthcare they are doing a good job. I never have to think about paying for medical care. It's there when I need it, and I do nothing other than turn up at the clinic/hospital. One less thing to worry about in life.

In Europe we feel we can trust our govts to do a good job of taking care of this money and using it for public services such as healthcare. Don't know if Americans trust their govt. in the same way. I think your problem is that private companies have too much influence over politicians there...

Obama seems like the most decent president that the US has had during my lifetime.... He seems to care about about regular Americans and not just about US corporate interests.

Michael Moore is certainly a spin doctor and I don't like his overly dramatic style. But his portrayal of British and French healthcare is 100% true - I've used both. Download his film: Sicko http://btjunkie.org/search?sourceid=...an&query=sicko (He doesn't care if people pirate his films.) If you don't know how to use Bittorrent, then watch it on Youtube.

I'm afraid there is nothing more I can say about this. I said everything I can.

I can't help but to think you with the socialized medicine want my country saddled with it:

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/10/ ... e-america/

Why do you care if my country has socialized medicine or not?

Scott

What a cheeky comment in response to my honest attempt to answer your question! You want to argue about this, that's all. Ok, my dear, pick your response:

1) Didn't I mention several times that I don't actually care much? What America does within it's own borders doesn't worry me. I was just trying to answer your question since there are no other Brits here.

2) Whatever. Just don't come to Europe and freeload on us, since it wouldn't be reciprocated if we went to the US..

3) Actually the real reason I care is because I am part of a worldwide Communist / Al Qaeda joint conspiracy against the Land of the Free... The plan is to force everybody to recieve free healthcare, and then create a dictatorship under Osama bin Laden and Kim Jong-il. The healthy and no longer overweight Americans can then work as slave labour in the mines... After that, think "Soylent Green"....

Round one to Johanna!

Originally Posted by Johanna

What a cheeky comment in response to my honest attempt to answer your question! You want to argue about this, that's all. Ok, my dear, pick your response:

1) Didn't I mention several times that I don't actually care much? What America does within it's own borders doesn't worry me. I was just trying to answer your question since there are no other Brits here.

2) Whatever. Just don't come to Europe and freeload on us, since it wouldn't be reciprocated if we went to the US..

3) Actually the real reason I care is because I am part of a worldwide Communist / Al Qaeda joint conspiracy against the Land of the Free... The plan is to force everybody to recieve free healthcare, and then create a dictatorship under Osama bin Laden and Kim Jong-il. The healthy and no longer overweight Americans can then work as slave labour in the mines... After that, think "Soylent Green"....

Johanna,
If you look at my post that resulted in the above I did not address you specifically. I was asking in general. When I want to ask you a question I use your name. You have been very honest in your answers and I thank you for that. I also knew that #3 from above was what you were up to.

Scott

From what I have seen about the proposed Obamacare by the US congresswhores, it will NOT resemble European socialized medicine. One still will have to buy it and it will not be cheap. Some say it will be just as expensive or worse. Further, if one fails to buy it, one can face a jail time.

Death Panels do exist in Britain:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi ... ?id=505757
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... e-NHS.html

Nonsense and propaganda.

Obviously these types of decisions VERY RARELY have to be made due to the ability of medical science to artificually keep people alive indefinitely. On ocassion a patient might be in a "grey area" between life and death, and the way to proceed with his/her treatment needs to be discussed in a panel of experts. Jumping on this and calling it a death panel is a tactic used by those who opposed free healthcare.

What would happen would be that the panel recommends to the relatives that treatment should be ceased. The family can reject the recommendation as has happened countles times with toddlers that were kept alive for years despite having no hope at all of regaining consciousness.

It certainly happens elsewhere, Terry Schneider was one case I believe. Plus in Britain this decision has nothing to do with the individual's ability to pay for treatment, or his ability to access medical care in time... It's taken strictly on medical grounds.

The public in Britain in general have no problem with this.

The Daily Telegraph is an arch-conservative paper which would like to privatise everything in the country, which deeply regrets the loss of the Empire and which hates all other countries apart from the USA and Britain..

The other magazine isn't even British.

But if you want to deny yourselves free healthcare on these grounds it is your problem... Just don't accuse Britain of murdering people in the NHS when, in fact that NHS is doing a very good job.

Originally Posted by Johanna

Nonsense and propaganda.

Obviously these types of decisions VERY RARELY have to be made due to the ability of medical science to artificually keep people alive indefinitely. On ocassion a patient might be in a "grey area" between life and death, and the way to proceed with his/her treatment needs to be discussed in a panel of experts. Jumping on this and calling it a death panel is a tactic used by those who opposed free healthcare.

What would happen would be that the panel recommends to the relatives that treatment should be ceased. The family can reject the recommendation as has happened countles times with toddlers that were kept alive for years despite having no hope at all of regaining consciousness.

It certainly happens elsewhere, Terry Schneider was one case I believe. Plus in Britain this decision has nothing to do with the individual's ability to pay for treatment, or his ability to access medical care in time... It's taken strictly on medical grounds.

The public in Britain in general have no problem with this.

The Daily Telegraph is an arch-conservative paper which would like to privatise everything in the country, which deeply regrets the loss of the Empire and which hates all other countries apart from the USA and Britain..

The other magazine isn't even British.

But if you want to deny yourselves free healthcare on these grounds it is your problem... Just don't accuse Britain of murdering people in the NHS when, in fact that NHS is doing a very good job.

Johanna,
You keep saying "free healthcare". How can it be free? Is it stolen? You mentioned taxes pay for it. The folks that pay more in taxes do not get "free healthcare". They just pay more in taxes instead of medical costs. So the system takes from those that make money and support those that make little or no money. What happens when those that make a lot of money get tired of the government taking their money? Excuse my ignorance of the British tax system but didn't the Beatles live away from Britain for some time to avoid the high taxes? That was a long time ago, is the tax system the same where the more someone makes the bigger percentage the government takes? I know here in the USA that is the way it is. How is that fair?

Scott

Scott

You are not just looking for responses to your questions from a European perspective. You want to debate this topic back and forth ad-infinitum and that doesn't interest me. What I have told you is what the avg. European would say.

I feel some degree of empathy for those Americans who are denied treatment that they need by their insurance company.. Other than that, I couldn't care less how the United States organises its' healthcare.

If you look at my earlier responses (two extensive ones already!) you'll see that I have already mentioned how financing of public healthcare works. Please feel free to replace any instances of the word "free" with "fully tax subsidised" and re-read my earlier response.

This forum is about Russia btw, not about internal politics of Britain or the USA other than as a comparison to Russia/CIS. You might want to raise this question in a general political forum

Originally Posted by Johanna

You are not just looking for responses to your questions from a European perspective. You want to debate this topic back and forth ad-infinitum and that doesn't interest me. What I have told you is what the avg. European would say.

I feel some degree of empathy for those Americans who are denied treatment that they need by their insurance company.. Other than that, I couldn't care less how the United States organises its' healthcare.

If you look at my earlier responses (two extensive ones already!) you'll see that I have already mentioned how financing of public healthcare works. Please feel free to replace any instances of the word "free" with "fully tax subsidised" and re-read my earlier response.

This forum is about Russia btw, not about internal politics of Britain or the USA other than as a comparison to Russia/CIS. You might want to raise this question in a general political forum

Johanna,
So you will stop constantly making backhanded comments about my country?

Scott

Originally Posted by Johanna

Nonsense and propaganda.

Obviously these types of decisions VERY RARELY have to be made due to the ability of medical science to artificually keep people alive indefinitely. On ocassion a patient might be in a "grey area" between life and death, and the way to proceed with his/her treatment needs to be discussed in a panel of experts. Jumping on this and calling it a death panel is a tactic used by those who opposed free healthcare.

What would happen would be that the panel recommends to the relatives that treatment should be ceased. The family can reject the recommendation as has happened countles times with toddlers that were kept alive for years despite having no hope at all of regaining consciousness.

It certainly happens elsewhere, Terry Schneider was one case I believe. Plus in Britain this decision has nothing to do with the individual's ability to pay for treatment, or his ability to access medical care in time... It's taken strictly on medical grounds.

The public in Britain in general have no problem with this.

The Daily Telegraph is an arch-conservative paper which would like to privatise everything in the country, which deeply regrets the loss of the Empire and which hates all other countries apart from the USA and Britain..

The other magazine isn't even British.

But if you want to deny yourselves free healthcare on these grounds it is your problem... Just don't accuse Britain of murdering people in the NHS when, in fact that NHS is doing a very good job.

I see, because your politics differs from that of the Telegraph then I should not believe this article because they are lying when they say that there is a group of experts who are complaining about NHS end of life treatment. All hail Queen Johanna!

Только что из московской больницы, лежал с травмой 2 недели. Кошмар, позапрошлый век. Вдобавок был вынужден заплатить $1100 за инструменты. Радует лишь мастерство хирургов.

Originally Posted by mishau_

Только что из московской больницы, лежал с травмой 2 недели. Кошмар, позапрошлый век. Вдобавок был вынужден заплатить $1100 за инструменты. Радует лишь мастерство хирургов.

С выздоровлением!
Здесь бы никогда не продержали две недели или даже неделю. Ну разве что, если в коме.

Originally Posted by mishau_

Только что из московской больницы, лежал с травмой 2 недели. Кошмар, позапрошлый век. Вдобавок был вынужден заплатить $1100 за инструменты. Радует лишь мастерство хирургов.

Oh my goodness, you are just back from the hospital? That's what you said, right? I was wondering where you were... !!
What happened? How are you now?

$1100 - really!?? For a state hospital! That's crap! It should be free - you oughtn't have to pay for anything. There must be lots of people who can't afford to pay that - what happens to them? Do you have an insurance that covers it?

IMHO - A society where people are denied treatment or where some people's illness are other peoples fortune is immoral. Is that really how Russia is now? Do people have to get private health insurances to be certain that they will be taken care of if they get ill?

Originally Posted by Johanna

Do you have an insurance that covers it?

You can wait till infinity to get such health care.

Frankly there is something very perverted about this. What's going on?


1) You guys HAD free universal healthcare in the USSR, right? What happened to that?

2) Russia is a rich country! It's full of stuff that other countries want - oil, gas, minerals... There must be money for something as basic as health.

3) The level of education is high - people go to Russia from around the world to study medicine. Not like in backwards countries where they don't have the skills to organise universal healtcare.

4) Most people probably believe in solidarity etc and would support free universal healthcare on principle... Unlike for instance the US where the view is different.
OR??


So how can you NOT have free healthcare, what a shock.. !
This ought to be a big political issue in Russia... ?