iansheff Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Just watching Panorama from last night about healthcare, I hope Cameron watched it because it was disgusting. Fifty million Americans are living without health insurance, a man who had a hernia for 10 years queued with hundreds of others to see a doctor at a free consultation he was told that he needed to go to the emergency room, but he only earned $5000 a year. His wife talked him into going he was told it would be $20,000 dollars for the surgery, needless to say he has not had it done. Is this how you want the people of this country to end up Mr Cameron? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Bit misleading don't you think? Cameron is not talking about making it like America (which does have a disgusting system), they aren't suggesting us having to get insurance as far as I am aware? There is a Michael Moore documentary on american healthcare-pretty horrifying, there was a guy who had chainsawed two fingers off and he only got the cheaper one reattached! Its a completely flawed system once you have a pre-existing condition it sounds like you are up the creek! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 In answer to the question in the OP: No. The Healthcare Bill is as far removed from the example given as can be imagined. Once you cut through the crap it basically puts healthcare decisions in the hands of GP's and their patients instead of bureaucrats, so what's not to like in principle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saffy Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 We have bupa cover but it wouldn't cover my spinal cord stimulator because it's not "a cure" ... Bit pointless our having it .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansheff Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 Do people believe that once the Govt have started with privatisation through the back door it will stop there. People will have to have health insurance, what about those people that cannot afford it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Do people believe that once the Govt have started with privatisation through the back door it will stop there. People will have to have health insurance, what about those people that cannot afford it? who says they will? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I am listening to it now and the reporter seems to be suggesting that its Obamas fault the system hasn't changed but I thought he fought tooth and nail for the reforms but the rednecks and conservatives claimed everyone would have to wait years for treatment and all disabled people would die and other factually devoid rubbish? How do the American voters miss the fact that all the people in countries with healthcare free at the point of access wouldn't think of using their system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libuse Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 who says they will? Doesn't the fact that there is no geographical obligation in the current bill suggest that commissioners (in whatever form they take) will be able to pick and chose the most cost effective, low risk patients, and top ups in some form (insurance?) will be required for those who are higher risk, more complicated or less profitable? Why, otherwise, would the bill omit geographical obligation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Doesn't the fact that there is no geographical obligation in the current bill suggest that commissioners (in whatever form they take) will be able to pick and chose the most cost effective, low risk patients, and top ups in some form (insurance?) will be required for those who are higher risk, more complicated or less profitable? Why, otherwise, would the bill omit geographical obligation? I am obviously confused about what geographical obligation means if it is linked to whether we will have to get insurance? I would have thought it was something to do with offering the same services in different geographical locations but that wouldn't infer we would need insurance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libuse Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I am obviously confused about what geographical obligation means if it is linked to whether we will have to get insurance? I would have thought it was something to do with offering the same services in different geographical locations but that wouldn't infer we would need insurance? Sorry - no, it's not (ostensibly) to do with insurance. Currently commissioners are obliged to provide any treatment they fund to all patients in their geographical area, unless there are clinical reasons not to do so. Under the new bill, commissioners will not be obliged to do this, so much like the ITCs today, will be well placed to treat the uncomplicated, cheaper, low risk patients, rather than all. We already see this happening with ITCs, I can find no compelling argument that we won't see an extension of this. Thus, higher risk, complicated patients may find that they need to provide their own contribution to treatment costs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.