2 Sickbeds, 2 Countries

[Micah 16]

*Please keep the discussion civil*

I ran across this very interesting story on MSNBC. It documents how a guy recieved care in two different countries, using two different systems, having two major different costs, and resulting in two different quality lessons (Keep in mind, in two different decades). I suppose I'll just post a small part of the article here and let you read the rest in the link (please read all before you post) :

LONDON - A few weeks ago I found myself curled up in a hospital here in London, my feverish body shaking violently back and forth. The pain in my side and back made it hard to straighten my torso, and I’d thrown up in a friend’s car on the way to the hospital.

The hospital couldn’t find an extra hospital bed, so I spent my first night hooked up to an IV on a gurney in the middle of a row of men and women, my sweaty skin sticking to the plastic. A shriveled woman in the bed to my right issued loud and largely unintelligible commands to nobody in particular. A steady flow of patients visited the bathroom right in front of my bed. A shouting match broke out between some of the nurses and nurses aides until a man at the other end of the room yelled, “Could you please take it outside? I’m trying to rest.”

Sometime in the midst of this I was diagnosed with pyelonephritis, a severe urinary tract infection that had spread to a kidney, and ended up in the hospital for three nights. I had already been on two courses of antibiotics, but that hadn’t cleared up the initial infection. Finding myself sick and alone thousands of miles away from my mom was bad enough, but scarier still was just how familiar the illness felt.

I’d been sick with the same thing almost 10 years ago when I was in my 20s and still living in the United States, where I’m from. In both cases, my side and back hurt and fever shot up. And each time, I recovered after serious doses of antibiotics and lots of bed rest. But apart from that, my experiences were a world apart.

The biggest difference: Money. Getting sick in New York City decimated my bank account. In London, I didn’t pay a penny. I should note, however, that a full 9 percent of my gross pay goes towards the equivalent of a health tax. (For comparison’s sake, according to the Commonwealth Fund, in 2007 about half of working-age Americans spent 5 percent or more of their income on out-of-pocket medical costs and premiums.)

And while I recovered fully in both cases, the care I received felt quite different. In New York, I never feared that I would be overlooked. At my doctor’s office in upscale Gramercy Park, he and his nurses took their time seeing me, and were always at pains to reassure me. On my first visit, the receptionist let me sit in an empty consulting room so that I wouldn’t have to weep in the waiting room. She checked in on me and brought me water.

But unlike the personal care I received in the U.S., in London, I felt like I was on a vast and often creaking conveyor belt, and there was a big risk of falling through the cracks. British care is socialized — and feels that way.

Affordable, but at what cost?
Amid the fever and pain, and the crushing boredom of my London hospital beds (I spent each of my three nights in different wards of the huge Royal Free Hospital), I couldn’t help but compare my two experiences and think about the presidential campaign happening back home and the growing impetus for health care reform in the United States.

Would the elderly woman in my ward in London who repeatedly pleaded “Can someone help me please?” after being left on her dirty bedpan for almost an hour, recommend a version of the National Health Service to Americans? What would British patients who are denied certain drugs because of funding constraints or because they’re deemed too experimental say about it?

And how about Professor Paul Goddard, one of the England’s senior doctors, who said recently that thousands of hospital patients are “starving” because over-burdened nurses don’t have time to feed them?

I saw what he was talking about. In the third ward, I spent a day next to an ancient-looking woman who refused to touch her food. A few times the harried nurse tried unsuccessfully to get her to eat. Mostly my neighbor sat with her eyes closed, her chin resting on her chest.

Being mouthy and mobile, I felt confident that I could cajole the hospital workers into paying attention to me. As it turned out, I had to be very, very patient. Nurses paced the corridors all the time and we could call them from our beds, but doctors were a bit harder to come by — unless there was a real emergency everyone had to wait their turn. And about twice a day a pack of lean and well-dressed physicians clutching clipboards would lope into the ward, pull the flimsy green curtains around our beds and ask us to share intimate information within earshot of the other patients. Being shameless and forthright, I got along OK — I pressed the doctors for answers and they sent me for a battery of tests to make sure that there wasn’t anything else wrong with me.

But I wasn’t so confident for some of my companions. One of my three roommates in the second ward was a woman who said she had a dislodged stent in her chest and was waiting for urgent heart surgery. She gasped for breath when hobbling across the room to the bathroom, and rarely spoke to the doctors except to say “thank you.” She confessed to me through tears that she had tried to kill herself a few weeks earlier. At one point the nurses left her in a corner in a wheelchair for about two hours as they looked for a bed for her on the cardiac ward.

Going broke to pay for clean bill of health
Complaints about health care straddle both sides of the Atlantic, of course.

With both Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama devoting time to the issue of reform, politicians in the United States are responding to the feeling that something fundamental has to change when it comes to taking care of Americans’ health.

That’s because “the system is breaking down,” says Jacob Hacker, a professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley, whose work on health care reform influenced Obama and his former rival in the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton.

“We have people who are facing financial ruin even if they have medical insurance,” says Hacker, the author of "The Great Risk Shift: The Assault on American Jobs, Families, Health Care and Retirement — And How You Can Fight Back.”quote>

The rest of the article discusses if the "UK is the way to go?"

[Zelgadis 638]

UK the way to go? I'd say not. Japan is a good world model. I received exemplary care there every time I needed a doctor. And that was many, many times, including two surgeries and a bout of sinusitis. There was a small fee, but it was minimal. My treatment was very personalized, doctors were friendly and caring, and they even made sure I had the surgeon who also had significant experience in cosmetic surgery to take out my tumors. Let me put it this way. The area on my body where tumors were taken out almost 20 years ago still hurt sometimes. No such complaint from the ones that I had removed in Japan.

Canada is good too. Not perfect, but good. I've had no complaints so far about my hospital care here yet either. I'm very satisfied.

The above article compares the US and the UK. These are merely two systems and despite what many seem to think, socialized medicine is not all the same. I've heard, though I don't know if it's actually true, that the UK system is badly in need of an overhaul. Can't confirm that though, since I've never experienced it.

America has its foibles too. I had a problem with two major things. First, I couldn't afford health insurance since my skin problem made premiums mind-bogglingly astronomical. Second, when my mother offered to pay to have my skin checked, it turned out to be quite difficult to find a doctor since so many were now exclusively dealing with cosmetic surgery. I guess one yacht isn't enough...

ISF

[Easy Bakes 253]

We already have a model of how the US govenrment  will run a hospitol/Health care system.

Its called The VA hospitols. To put it mildly they are abysimal.

Seriously we dont need the majority of our hospitols to become like that system.

[Yoman3 5]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes We already have a model of how the US govenrment  will run a hospitol/Health care system.

Its called The VA hospitols. To put it mildly they are abysimal.

Seriously we dont need the majority of our hospitols to become like that system.

quote>

Everything that is run by the government here sucks

[fukuda 351]

I've never been to a NHS hospital so I don't know how the treatment is there, I'll wait our english members to post about NHS.

However, world is not limited to the US and UK, and I do know how healthcare is over here, last time I went to a hospital (Seaside Hospital this time) with a double luxation I was treated in like 20 minutes, and someone was attended before me.

Yes, you have to pay more taxes, you'll be put on a waiting list for a surgery (mine will be next year, but well it's not life-threatening and I can live more or less normally) and so on. But your drugs are paid by the health service (you in the last instance, everyone technically), and I (and more other people) wouldn't be able to afford paying a surgery without getting a heavy loan

[ILL Tonkso 1,239]

I have always been treated in an NHS hospital and while I agree the NHS needs reform it isnt that bad at all :\ My local Hospital 'Queen Alexandra, Portsmouth Hospitals Trust' was rated 4th worst in the UK in the NHS hospital review, and its pretty good I think. About a month ago my mother was hospitalised with an internal infection. She was put strait into a bed (single bed room), her room was cleaned HOURLY and as soon as she was in, the doctors did the tests immediately. She was out in 2 days. The hospital is also getting a

[Aontan 0]

Originally posted by: Micah *Please keep the discussion civil*quote>

 

Wishful thinking...

[Patricius Maximus 236]

In my opinion, full socialized medicine like in the UK is not the best thing to do.

There are systems that combine the "safety net" of state health care and the choice and competition of privately run health care.

In the US, I can think of two good ways to reform healthcare:

1) Provide a government-run health insurance plan paid for by taxes. Also, do not outlaw private plans, and do not mandate that everyone have a plan. That way, if you do not want insurance, you don't have to have it, and you can have a private plan if you wish. The result of this would be the majority are covered by the government plan, with some covered privately and a few having none by choice. Could cost a lot of money.

2) Make 10% of your annual income reported to the IRS the limit that doctors, nurses, and hospitals can charge a patient. This plan would eliminate the necessity of insurance, and what doctors can charge. Doctors can still make a good income with this plan, but patient welfare is protected. Result: Little need for insurance, lower premiums for remaining plans, more affordable health care; costs taxpayers nothing.

I'd prefer Option 2. I just thought of it a few weeks ago.

The NHS, as well as similar types of health care, is a more socialist and collective-oritented system, and it costs a lot of money to operate.

The US private coverage does have it's advantages -- depending on the doctor, of course -- such as individualized care, and the feeling that you are being treated, instead of on a conveyor belt.

Limiting what doctors can charge is a good plan which will cost nothing, and will actually make money for the people.

- Patricius Maximus

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Yoman3

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes We already have a model of how the US govenrment  will run a hospitol/Health care system.

Its called The VA hospitols. To put it mildly they are abysimal.

Seriously we dont need the majority of our hospitols to become like that system.

quote>

Everything that is run by the government here sucks quote>

Very true. Just look at your average public school...

Anyways, you've heard my rants before on this topic. In short: socialized healthcare is a no-no. The free market system is inherently superior in quality due to competition and motivation.

[Meastro444 1]

well, Duke, i am Dutch, and i have no complaints about our healthcare system. i have no bad experiences with it at all.

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Anyways, you've heard my rants before on this topic. In short: socialized healthcare is a no-no. The free market system is inherently superior in quality due to competition and motivation.quote>

 

The government is not to be trusted, true.  But I've never in my life understood what could make a person think that business is more trustworthy than the government.  I trust business less.  Much, much less.

ISF

[fukuda 351]

1) Provide a government-run health insurance plan paid for by taxes. Also, do not outlaw private plans, and do not mandate that everyone have a plan. That way, if you do not want insurance, you don't have to have it, and you can have a private plan if you wish. The result of this would be the majority are covered by the government plan, with some covered privately and a few having none by choice. Could cost a lot of money.quote>

That's actually what happens here. Well, there are no public insurance plans, but you're free to have a private plan or to have none. No one forces you to go to the hospital or to be checked.

The US private coverage does have it's advantages -- depending on the doctor, of course -- such as individualized care, and the feeling that you are being treated, instead of on a conveyor belt.quote>

? There's also individualized care in public healthcare, you know?

The free market system is inherently superior in quality due to competition and motivation.quote>

That's hardly true here

A big part of the research in biomedics and medicine here is sponsored by the government, as all big public hospitals have the latest technology. Why? Because private healthcare is just unable to afford all the gigantic expenditures. Yes, you have ultra expensive health centers for rich people, but they send them to the public hospitals when they need a CAT or an expensive test XD

well, Duke, i am Dutch, and i have no complaints about our healthcare system. i have no bad experiences with it at all.quote>

Same here

But I've never in my life understood what could make a person think that business is more trustworthy than the government. I trust business less. Much, much less.quote>

Must be free market magic, I guess

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

Originally posted by: zelgadis

Originally posted by: Duke87

Anyways, you've heard my rants before on this topic. In short: socialized healthcare is a no-no. The free market system is inherently superior in quality due to competition and motivation.quote>

 

The government is not to be trusted, true.  But I've never in my life understood what could make a person think that business is more trustworthy than the government.  I trust business less.  Much, much less.

ISF

quote>

Part of the problem with government is that you don't have a choice.  You MUST pay taxes.  You HAVE to go to the DMV and get your driver's license or whatever.  With business, they have to persuade you to spend money on them.  Of course, they all want to make a profit, so they'll go to *guess who* the government to get any advantage they can.  The free market is good for consumers, bad for businessmen.  Of course, you're totally right in not trusting business: it's good to be a discriminating consumer.

Anyways, so far as socialized health care, I think that while the American system has its faults, there are good reasons to keep it un-socialized, or rather less socialized (there are parts of it that are taxpayer subsidized).  I hope this isn't too far off-topic, but I think that a major factor in rising medical costs in the States is litigious lottery seekers: trial lawyers looking for big pay days by exploiting every little mistake doctors make that they can find.  Tort reform is a good answer, not socialization.

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: NMUSpidey

Originally posted by: zelgadis

Originally posted by: Duke87

Anyways, you've heard my rants before on this topic. In short: socialized healthcare is a no-no. The free market system is inherently superior in quality due to competition and motivation.quote>

 

The government is not to be trusted, true.  But I've never in my life understood what could make a person think that business is more trustworthy than the government.  I trust business less.  Much, much less.

ISF

quote>

Part of the problem with government is that you don't have a choice.  You MUST pay taxes.quote>

Depends on the system, but while you must pay taxes, at least, in Canada and Japan anyway, you do have your choice of hospital and doctor.  That's the important part.  I think a lot of Americans are concerned that socialized medicine is like the VA system, where you don't have a choice of hospitals or doctors.  VA is socialized medicine run amok and that extreme is no good either.  Happy medium is the place to be. 

With business, they have to persuade you to spend money on them.quote>

True, and that's one of the reasons why I don't understand why the American system works the way it does.  I got car insurance in Canada.  Most companies here didn't want to give me car insurance without astronomical premiums since I had just come to live in Canada from the States.  But I finally found one that was reasonable.  I guess TD did want my money after all.    But that doesn't appear to be the case with the American health insurance system.  I can hardly find a HMO who will take my business, let alone one that will take my business without charging me an astronomical sum. 

I like the system here.  I pay my taxes.  When I get sick, I go to the doctor of my choice and get myself all fixed up with no extra charge at the end.  No problems so far.    In fact, I'm going to go get my ears cleaned tomorrow.  I know I'll be seen right away and I won't be charged extra for that. 

ISF

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

With insurance, it's a little different. Insurance companies have to weigh the risk of insuring you, because they know that if something goes wrong, they must cover your bill (depending on the coverage, of course). So, with higher health risks will naturally come higher premiums or more limited coverage. Of course, one of the debates in socialized (or heavily subsidized) health care is how much of that risk should be public risk? That is to say, does all of society hold responsibility for your health risks? Humanely, I would say of course ("Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee"), but on the other hand, it can get expensive, quickly. Government faces different incentives from the private market, for example, the lack of competition and necessity in efficiency force private companies to look for better ways to do business (unless the government steps in to help them), whereas the government gets its system and just stays the course without any push from competition to get better. Also, the bureaucracy of a government agency makes it difficult to enact changes and adapt to new realities. That's not to say that private companies don't also have bureaucratic nightmares (if you get too big, it's a problem), but in government it seems to be all encompassing.

[Hahayoudied 3]

In the U.S., our health care system's prescribing and recording system, is still based on PAPER!

If we switch to electronics and computers, U.S. would save money from lower amount of misperscribed drugs,  mistreatment, misdignoise, and etc.

Basicly, U.S. health care is a bit out of date...

Not to mention, there was one story where a 32 year old man had cancer, and he needed a matching bone marrow. His brother turned out to be the perfect match.

However, the person was told by the hospital that his heath insurance company will only cover a max of $150,000 per treatment (wow, that is a rip off), his bone marrow transplant surgery was about $450,000. Also, the hospital demanded $300,000 upfront. As a result, the man was forced to find a way to get the $300,00, and as time passed, he became sicker and sicker from cancer...

At the end, he finally found a way to get the needed $300,000, and he got his bone marrow treatment. Few months later, he died from complication from his cancer.

These days, surgery is very costly, and many people who paid their insurance depended on their health insurance to bail them out of the costly surgery. However, many times, those insurance refuse and let their customers suffer.

In the U.K., their health care system isn't any better, due to overcrowding, bad health care system, limited funding, and delays.

In the U.S., their health care system isn't better, due to costly health care, risk of rejections from health insurance, out of date prescribing and recording system (wow, who uses paper these days?), and etc.

Correct me if I am wrong.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

2) Make 10% of your annual income reported to the IRS the limit that doctors, nurses, and hospitals can charge a patient. This plan would eliminate the necessity of insurance, and what doctors can charge. Doctors can still make a good income with this plan, but patient welfare is protected. Result: Little need for insurance, lower premiums for remaining plans, more affordable health care; costs taxpayers nothing.quote>

What if it costs more than 10% of your yearly income to treat you?  Who pays the difference?

[Hahayoudied 3]

"What if it costs more than 10% of your yearly income to treat you?  Who pays the difference?"

Mostly health insurance companies in the U.S., but some times they WILL force some of their customers to pay by themselves.

OR...

Some times doctors and hospitals pays out of their own pockets because they felt sorry for sick people who got ripped off by their health insurance.

[Danlikebooks 6]

Originally posted by: Yoman3

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes We already have a model of how the US govenrment  will run a hospitol/Health care system.

Its called The VA hospitols. To put it mildly they are abysimal.

Seriously we dont need the majority of our hospitols to become like that system.

quote>

Everything that is run by the government here sucks quote>

I have to agree with this.  My dad works for for the VA Hospital in Cincinnati as a pathologist (He deals with dead people).  According to him the VA is pretty average.

At the end, it all comes down to "Do you want to recover fully and go bankrupt, but have great care," or "Do you want to eventually recover without paying that much upfront and then lose your individuality" (IMHO).

Do we want our hospitals to go the way of our public schools?  Underfunded and overcrowded?  It's a hard question.

[Micah 16]

Everything that is run by the government here sucksquote>

Well, I'd have to say I partially agree. Not everything, but a majority of goverment run programs, organizations, institutions, etc. do "suck", as you put it. One thing the 21st century has taught me so far in my short existance is that I should not heavily rely on the government as so many do here in this country. I personally believe it's niave to believe the government will always be there for you whenever you have a problem.

[Hahayoudied 3]

Remember the USSR where the government controlled almost everyone and everything? Then people got mad because they wanted freedom and etc. As a result, they overthrew the government.

[fukuda 351]

Who's talking about communism?

[SimRabbit 48]

If public education sucks in America, I can't imagine how a health care will be. Oh god!!

[screamingman12 30]

Originally posted by: SimRabbit If public education sucks in America, I can't imagine how a health care will be. Oh god!!quote>

It doesn't, not for me at least. It's all relative, so you can't go making assumptions and generalizing that perhaps because you went to a public school and it sucked, that all public schools suck.

Just with that, I'm pretty sure that all the hospitals in the UK are like that, just a few of them, and those are what we hear about.

[Meg 368]

Okay, the election thread is getting into health care.  I'm going to send the posts over here.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK Haha, doing the same

I've decided that since here in TX obviously McCain will win our electoral college votes and make any other popular votes meaningless, maybe I should take the chance at supporting a independent candidate that aligns closer to my views. Nader, specifically.

I think Ralph Nader might be a good vote to show there are still straight-up liberals out there especially within my generation of people born in the late 80's to Reagan-ite parents.

I am all for healthcare reform and like the idea of a black president, but beyond that I feel like Obama is mostly a populist and will lose his luster when the things he promises don't happen and headlines change.

quote>

 

The  problem is thier Health care reform means National health care.

Their are better ways to reform the current system with out resorting to it being free for every one which will just create a bloated burarcracy that will make things much worse even if thier is a way to pay for it all.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[hummer0328 6]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Originally posted by: hamsterTK Haha, doing the same

I've decided that since here in TX obviously McCain will win our electoral college votes and make any other popular votes meaningless, maybe I should take the chance at supporting a independent candidate that aligns closer to my views. Nader, specifically.

I think Ralph Nader might be a good vote to show there are still straight-up liberals out there especially within my generation of people born in the late 80's to Reagan-ite parents.

I am all for healthcare reform and like the idea of a black president, but beyond that I feel like Obama is mostly a populist and will lose his luster when the things he promises don't happen and headlines change.

quote>

The problem is thier Health care reform means National health care.

Their are better ways to reform the current system with out resorting to it being free for every one which will just create a bloated burarcracy that will make things much worse even if thier is a way to pay for it all.

quote>

Oh, jeez. I know there is a health-care thread, but I cannot resist commenting on these types of posts. Why are so many people opposed to nationalized health-care? What is the big scare? We all live in a society, we are our brother's keepers, so to speak. If the impoverished cannot afford health-care, we, as a nation, need to help them. Nationalized health-care does not eliminate private healthcare, just like medicare/medicaid does not. It will provide subsidized coverage for those who cannot afford it on their own. There is nothing wrong or frightening about the government running something. I often hear the favorite complaint of "wah, wah, look at the DMV". Okay, what is the problem? I go to the DMV to update my address because I moved. Guess what? I'm done in less than ten minutes. I go to the DMV to change my vehicle registration. Guess what, I'm done in ten minutes. Another favorite example, "wah, wah, the Social Security Administration is full of idiots". No, the user is the idiot. I have never had any issue updating my information with the SSA, nor obtaining a new SSN card, etc.

I wish people would think more about these types of things. It is not complicated; it is all rather simple. Just like grammar and spelling, which I see many people seem to have a hard time using.

Barbarossaquote>

At the same time, there are plenty of examples where the government has made a massive mess of things. Try getting Social Security Disability when you really need it. It usually takes a few years. Medicare and Medicaid aren't the greatest things either. The US spends more per capita on education than any other country, yet our schools aren't really that great. Our government spending/capita on health care is already in the top ten of all UN nations. In the end it's not how much money is spent, but how that money is used.

McCain isn't going to do enough to to change the system. While he is right when he says throwing money at the problem isn't going to solve anything, that's exactly what he is doing by giving out tax credits for health insurance. Obama has the right idea. He isn't proposing national health care. He is proposing national health insurance. The government already accounts for nearly half of all US health care spending anyways. And it can't be any worse than the current greedy insurance companies we already have. By increasing access to affordable health care, increasing private insurance competition, increasing prescription medication competition (by allowing controlled foreign importation) will decrease the cost of health care and in the long run save us money. Obama's plan doesn't just throw money at the problem, it fixes many of the current problems that are driving up the cost of health care. And unlike McCain, Obama will actually pay for his plan (allowing bush tax cuts to expire), rather than trying to drive up up the debt.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Why are so many people opposed to nationalized health-care? What is the big scare? quote>

I can't speak for others, but I know for one thing that I firmly believe that there's no such thing as a free lunch. You want something, you gotta earn it. The government shouldn't just hand it to you.

We all live in a society, we are our brother's keepers, so to speak. If the impoverished cannot afford health-care, we, as a nation, need to help them.quote>

That's one view of things. The other, equally valid one would be "Your healthcare woes are not my problem. Why the hell should my tax dollars be going to pay for you to go to the doctor? If you can't afford it or don't want to pay for it, you don't go. Boo hoo for you."

Nationalized health-care does not eliminate private healthcare, just like medicare/medicaid does not. It will provide subsidized coverage for those who cannot afford it on their own. quote>

But it does cost everyone money whether they avail themselves of the service or not. That lack of personal choice in whether or not you pay for it and how much makes it oppressive. Different people have different levels of what they want from healthcare. Some people are perfectly happy never going to the doctor. Others absolutely demand to see a doctor whenever they so much as get a cold. Why should the former group pay for the latter? Everyone paying equally is not fair, since not everyone uses equally. You pay for what you use. No more, no less. That's fair. And guess what? That's how our system works as is, things like Medicare and Medicaid notwithstanding (and I personally think those ought to be abolished, since they're both jokes and black holes for money).

There is nothing wrong or frightening about the government running something.quote>

If you trust the government, no, there isn't.

But many americans have a healthy distrust for the government. You can never fully trust someone with that much power. Power corrupts. It's why we've tried to build so many checks and balances into the system.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa