U.K.'s Healthcare Horror Stories Ought To Curb Dems' Enthusiasm For Single-Payer

I suggest that the problem has to do with differences in the training systems.

 

It's worse in Canada. Every pro single payer member of this forum should read this.

https://www.americanthinker.com/art..._care_system_thats_the_envy_of_the_world.html

 

If anyone thinks it's any better in France...

related thread: Man describes long wait time for emergency surgery in France

 

Warning:
My virus protection doesn't like your link.

 

I call BS on this one friend, I've got bullet proof security and it says it's fine.

 

Nope, you are wrong, nothing is for free in our society, even a NHS.

So what do you pay, one person self employed, put some dollar amounts on the table.

Neither insurance, or uninsured or your point 3, are a reason for the extraordinary cost of health insurance, I have to pay, $ 1600 per month.
Not on meds and besides shingles, I have had no medical issues and that at my age, for over 15 years.

$ 1600 every month. That is the real cost for a person without group insurance in the US.
How do you pay for that ?
Impossible, but you have to, because if the crap hits the fan, you are done, without the rip off..
Simple as that.
You wasted 30 or 40 years of self employment and building up wealth.
Gone.
Today we, the self employed cripple our self, by protecting our self or our families, with health insurance.
I am single no dependence, besides dogs, horses and pigs and I spent 1600 on health, just to save my ars and it might no save my financial ars
Why do Americans have to travel to Canada and Mexico to get the medication they need and they are on health insurance and medicare.

 

Pay your nickel take your chance.

 

The shortage is because they don't spend enough money, no because of who writes the checks.

 

Medicare and Medicaid fraud dwarfs private industry fraud per person in the system. Medicare insures approx 43 million and generates $60 to $90 billion in fraud.

That's 43 million (Medicare) vs 213 million (Private Insurance)

213 million private insured with $70 billion in fraud. 43 million Public insured with $60 Billion in fraud (I used the lowest estimate).

Private insurance fraud has approx $330 in fraud per insured.

Medicare Government run insurance approx $1430 in fraud per insured.

Fraud in the public sector insurance is over 4 time that in the private sector, yet our Government thinks it can administer health insurance better, that would include the fraud too. The ACA regulates private insurance companies to spend 80% - 85% of their collected premiums on insurees and limits administrative costs like the ones used to combat fraud 4 time more effectively than Medicare.

 

The NHS has both, why wouldn't Medicare for All?

 

I’ve not even started discussing that, I was just trying to get the OP to stop playing politics and start discussing the topic of healthcare structures and systems.

But yes, one of the reasons for single payer would be to provide at least a basic level of healthcare for those who can’t pay. Those who won’t pay would need to be made to pay but that’s no different with any other system – however it works, that kind of person would seek out a route to play the system and that always needs effort to prevent. You already have elements of that in the US system. Are you arguing for Medicaid and Medicare to be scrapped?

 

It's absolutely preposterous to take a single case example, as you did here, and try to make it representative of the French health care system.
How about taking a single case example and claiming it's representative of US health care? It simply doesn't work that way.

 

I am here to defend the NHS and Britain's medical system. It's one of the finest in the world and something I and the nation are incredibly proud of.

The mere suggestion of America's healthcare system being preferable is quite frankly, laughable. It's by no means perfect but I will defend it to the hilt.

 

So glad you like waiting hours for an ambulance or 8hrs in an ambulance in the parking lot just waiting to get into the ER. I'll gladly pay more for expedient service thanks.

 

Mine says it's fine too.

 

https://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/

We already have that.

 

So state funded social healthcare isn't such a terrible thing?

 

We have ambulance problems, too. Here, ambulance service isn't even necessarily covered by insurance policies as it can be seen as "out of network" even if the hospital care is within the network. The same problem exists for some specialties where private practices are used by hospitals - even including such required services as anesthesia when the hospital uses private anesthesiologists.

And, the fixation on specific instances is total BS.

NO honest analysis can possibly come from scouting out bad cases. That's the pathetic nonsense of AmericanThinker logic.

 

The average ambulance response time in life threatening situations (Category 1) is between six and seven minutes. Why not try to inform yourself first instead of commenting on something you're not familiar with. Single case examples, no matter how good or bad, have no representative value whatsoever and trying to misinterpret these things is obviously motivated by political ideology.
The average Category 1 response time improved from 7 minutes 37 seconds in April 2018 to 6 minutes 54 seconds in May 2018. The 7 minute target was met in March, April and May of this year.
https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/ambulance-response-times#background

 

We already have it for poor people who can't afford it, so what's your point?

 

Post a few articles where Americans had to wait in an ambulance for 8 hours just to get into the ER please.

 

Plenty to choose from...........

Woman, 88, dies after waiting four hours for an ambulance

Why does anyone who doesn't live in the U.S. care how we administer health care in our country? Does it make you feel better about the crappy health care they have in the UK if the U.S. does it too?

 

There are two different arguments coming from yourself and JCarlilesiu. They were claiming the purpose of nationalised healthcare being about those who can’t (which I agreed with) and won’t (which I didn’t) pay for themselves.

You just seem to be claiming that because you can cherry pick a couple of negative tabloid stories and statistics about the NHS, any form of single payer nationalised healthcare is guaranteed to be an automatic disaster. The fundamental flaw of that argument has already been explained to you but that you go on to promote an example of single payer nationalised healthcare you already have there only serves to highlight the flaw in your rhetoric.

 

There are two different arguments coming from yourself and JCarlilesiu. They were claiming the purpose of nationalised healthcare being about those who can’t (which I agreed with) and won’t (which I didn’t) pay for themselves.

You just seem to be claiming that because you can cherry pick a couple of negative tabloid stories and statistics about the NHS, any form of single payer nationalised healthcare is guaranteed to be an automatic disaster. The fundamental flaw of that argument has already been explained to you but that you go on to promote an example of single payer nationalised healthcare you already have there only serves to highlight the flaw in your rhetoric.

 

Oh, sure. You want ME to make the same dumb mistake. lol!

Their system isn't identical to ours, so any comparison is more complex.

Also, let's remember that ER care here is limited - it's going to take care of emergent problems only.

Once you're stable, it's up to you to try to buy solutions to your problems.

And, in our system, millions can not do that no matter HOW long they wait. It's not 8 hours. It's that you just won't get help unless you can find the money.