Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
There have been publicised cases of people being refused continued cover after they developed a serious problem, even if they had been paying premiums for years, even decades......
Most health insurance funds are in it to make MONEY, they don't want sick people on their books. :)
That's true too, but I think if the law was changed to respect people's right to actually get sick once in a while..lol...then maybe nationalizing half of the medical community of the US might not be necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelopard
I just watch what is going on in the US, and I know while a reform of the medical system may be needed, what is being offered is a dog's breakfast of bad ideas. What they could end up with is probably more confusing and worse than Canada's or the UK.
For those that don't realize it healthcare is rationed in the US. Try and get approval for a name brand drug when your plan wants generic: or, try and go to an out of network provider or hospital for care....
How many of us have had to get pre-approved for some type of test or treatment--that is rationing? US providers ration care to benefit the bottom line, not because of better health outcomes.
That may all be true, but trust me, in Canada, more than a name brand vs generic rationing is at work. I don't think there is a good choice for a version of healthcare systems, they all seem to have warts.Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff8407
You get what you pay for. if you signed up for a cheap HMO then don't be surprised if they want to give you generics.Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff8407
BTW what is so bad about generics? It is just a chemical compound. Both are FDA approved and are identical.
That is like people who spend $6 for a bottle of Tylenol when that $3 bottle of Acetaminophen is the exact same thing.
People complain about the levels of inefficiency of the NHS but when you consider that it costs £94bn to run as opposed to the US$2.26 trillion the U.S. spent on health care in 2007*, it means that on a per capita basis the NHS is 2.898 times more efficient than the health care system in the US, and certainly more equitable because the level of service afforded to patients is not determined by incomes.Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
Having been in hospitals in both the USA and the UK I can tell you from personal experience, that in the real world I don't see the level of service provided to patients by at least the hospital I was in, being 2.898 times better than an NHS hospital.
That's the rub as far as I'm concerned. The ultimate purpose of the health care system as the Rt Hon James Hacker MP said was "for healing the sick", whereas there seem to be a lot of monies in the US system flowing into private pockets.
Still, that is the consequence of a private system - private profiteering. And I suppose that if people virulently defend it, then they are by inference condoning it.
*http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealt...s/proj2007.pdf
Well there is the issue I suppose. I have not much time for a private corporation making money off of me, but I know the government often pays lip service to being for my welfare while rationing out my healthcare also. A pox on both of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
For the Yanks tho Rollo, the right of the individual to pay his way is what they are concerned about. They want that right to not have some gov't agency be in charge of what doctor they see, or what care they get. In Canada, that option is gone unless we drive south over the border. IN the UK, you guys have a private component to the system, and I suspect most Americans would accept something similar IF all the details were engraved in stone about protecting an individual's right to determine his own care. The problem is, Obama hasn't given them that choice, he is giving them a lot of non-specific generalities that will inevitablly cost everyone more ( he hasn't really rebutted that) in a time when the economy is knackered. Attacking the rich to pay for it, or attacking those joe citizens who oppose this is just digging him into an ideological hole.
I don't think the current US system is perfect, but what they are being told is their future isn't anything better. They wont get the NHS or Canada's system, they will get a mishmash of ideas with higher tax requirements and rationing of care. If they are not getting that on paper, that will be their reality.
I agree, generics should be used if available, I think here nowdays, even if the doctor writes in the prescripion the original medicine, the farmacy is obligated to tell about generics if such excist.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
The problem is some generics just aren't as good. My wife takes losec for her acid reflux. The generic that the doctors keep trying to make her accept doesn't seem to work as well as the original Losec. The pharmaceutical industry is the biggest profitteering crooks in the whole medical system, and their manipulation of formulas for various drugs and the generic market is riddled with issues....Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomi
For the most part generics do the job, but there are issues....
Most Americans will tell you that "healthcare is not a right". Bear in mind that the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights was never ratified by the USA so legally Article 25 does not apply:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Article 25.1
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
But when you bear in mind that under the US Constitution, that the Government has the responsibility through the preamble to "establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", I wonder what the "Founding Fathers" meant.
Legally what promoting the General Welfare actually is has never been addressed, and this is what a lot of the arguments in the US Senate have actually been of of late.
I do admit to being sick or hearing Ron Paul's voice in podcasts. I don't mind actual debate but his voice in the chamber is most vociferous and possibly constitutes filibustering to a degree. Certainly if he spoke with a more measured tone he'd be more bearable, but I find myself going "shut up" a deal of the time.