The end of free treatment from the NHS.

[Staunton]

US health insurance providers employ whole departments dedicated to the discovery of any reason to reject a claim for healthcare costs.

 

For example, if an insurer can find that an individual had a minor ailment such as an ingrowing toenail thirty years ago that was not declared on the insurance application, then they will refuse to pay out for an entirely unrelated condition such as heart disease or a spinal injury. This is why there are so many in the US who have to remortgage their house or go without essential care. They think they are covered until the crisis hits, then they find themselves without support and facing a life or death scrabble for the cash to fund their treatment.

 

And US insurance policies do not cover pre-existing conditions. Even if you do not seek treatment for such a condition at an earlier point in time, the health insurers will deem it pre-existing if you present today and they can establish that 'a reasonable person' would have sought medical assistance for such a condition when it first became apparent, and your insurance claim will be rejected.

 

Insurance companies are there to make profit, not to provide comprehensive health care for people.

[Rupert_Baehr]

... a US style health system where only the wealthy have access to healthcare.

 

In the United States of America ... people have to meet the enormous costs of insurance plans, remortgage their homes or take out huge loans in order to cover treatment, often for serious, life threatening conditions.

...

 

Really? - I never knew that. Perhaps on your planet (whatever it is) there is an America where life is like that, but on mine, it doesn't quite work that way.

 

In the America on my planet. the poor have medicaid (rather like the NHS. No charge)

 

Those who are over 65 have medicare. - again, no charge.

 

(BTW, those on medicaid and medicare are treated in the same hospitals and receive the same standard of treatment as do those who have paid insurance.)

 

Those in the middle can (if they are working for a company which is large enough to operate a 'group scheme' join that group scheme at often very modest rates. Some companies/organisations offer free (or not very expensive) cover after you've retired.

 

The people who have a problem are those who do not work for an organisation which has a group scheme. They have to take out individual cover which (IMO) is too expensive. (I was talking to a man a couple of months ago who has a good job, but with such an organisation. His individual policy (for himself and his wife) costs about £1000 a month - and that - IMO, is far too expensive.

 

Then there are others who are fairly young, fit and healthy who say: "Why should I bother with health insurance? - I'm young and fit. I don't need it."

 

Those who do not have insurance (for whatever reason) are not denied treatment - that would be illegal - but they have another problem.

 

I had some surgery in December. The insurance company sent me a copy of the paid bill.

 

The hospital billed me (but it went to my insurance company) $253,000.

 

The Insurance company said: "$253,000. That's nice. We'll pay you $38,000 in full settlement."

 

The hospital said: "OK, that'll do."

 

My share of that particular bill was $34. - Probably rather less than I would've paid on the 'free' NHS, because:

 

My wife didn't have to pay to park when she visited me,

 

I didn't have to pay to watch TV (not that I do)

 

I didn't have to pay to use the phone.

 

There's also that nice, eminently wise Mr Obama whose health plan comes into effect next year.

 

There are approximately 30 million Americans without insurance. When that plan comes into effect, there will be none.

 

Those who can't afford to pay the full premium will have a large part paid for them. Those who 'can't be bothered' to get insurance will be required to do so. (Why should the insurance companies be forced to insure only those likely to be sick? Insurance is a 'Pool' system.

 

Anyway, with effect from next year, all Americans will have insurance.

 

Of course, 30 million new patients will require at least 30,000 new doctors (1000 patients per doctor is, I am told, a reasonable figure in urban areas.) Much of 'flyover land' is not urban, but I'm sure that nice Mr Obama has got a plan ready to solve that problem

 

I don't know where those 30,000 new doctors are - Mr Obama is keeping that a secret.

 

I wouldn't be too surprised to see teams of American recruiters in the UK and Europe during the next some months, however.

 

---------- Post added 24-06-2013 at 16:34 ----------

 

US health insurance providers employ whole departments dedicated to the discovery of any reason to reject a claim for healthcare costs.

 

For example, if an insurer can find that an individual had a minor ailment such as an ingrowing toenail thirty years ago that was not declared on the insurance application, then they will refuse to pay out for an entirely unrelated condition such as heart disease or a spinal injury. This is why there are so many in the US who have to remortgage their house or go without essential care. They think they are covered until the crisis hits, then they find themselves without support and facing a life or death scrabble for the cash to fund their treatment.

 

And US insurance policies do not cover pre-existing conditions. Even if you do not seek treatment for such a condition at an earlier point in time, the health insurers will deem it pre-existing if you present today and they can establish that 'a reasonable person' would have sought medical assistance for such a condition when it first became apparent, and your insurance claim will be rejected.

 

Insurance companies are there to make profit, not to provide comprehensive health care for people.

 

Do you have evidence to support these claims? I had a number of pre-existing ailments when I was first insured. My insurers have paid out a significant amount to treat them and - under US Public Law - they are not permitted to cap the amount I claim.

 

But of course, you know better.

 

---------- Post added 24-06-2013 at 16:36 ----------

 

...

 

i went travellijng for a year all round the world and my insurance was £67 for full cover

 

Wow! - you got a deal! Did that include dental?

 

Please PM me with the company name and contact details.

[Staunton]

Rupert Baehr's own words identify that the US has 30,000 too few doctors. If the US health system is so accessible to poor people, then ask yourself why the Republican Party have mounted such vigorous and sustained opposition to Mr Obama's healthcare plans?

 

The US has the highest health care costs on earth, and there are millions without access to treatment.

 

And this is the model that the conservative led coalition wish to establish here in the UK, where only the wealthy can be sure of healthcare. The poor foot the bill, but only the rich profit, only the rich enjoy adequate services.

[Rupert_Baehr]

AS far as I'm aware, many of the Republicans are against Obamacare because they worked out that:

 

1. There aren't enough doctors.

2. Even if there was an unlimited supply of doctors, the '1000 patients per doctor' argument only applies to Urban areas. Much of 'flyover land' is hardly Urban.

3. The cost overrun is going to be dramatic

 

Harding County New Mexico, for instance has a total population of 591. Are they going to get half a doctor for the whole county?

 

Harding county has an area of 5506 Sq Km.

Yorkshire - all of it has an area of 11903 Sq Km. It's about twice the size of Harding county. Do you think 2 doctors would be enough to provide cover for a piece of land the size of Yorkshire?

 

Whoever (and I suggest they's need rather more than 10) gets / is willing to take the job of being a county GP in Harding county is going to need a pretty hefty salary subsidy. 60 patients wouldn't be enough to support one doctor.

 

Obama has been in power for longer than it takes to train a doctor. I'm sure he thought out the plan carefully . (He's probably got a box of 'dehydrated doctors - just add water' somewhere.)

 

When those people who can afford it, but choose not to be insured are forced to take out insurance and find there are no doctors to look after them, I'm sure that nice Mr Obama will come up with a solution.

 

I've no idea why he (apparently) did nothing to provide the doctors he will need to implement Obamacare.

 

Ask Harleyman. He's a Democrat and I'm sure he knows where all the new doctors are.

[Staunton]

So, the USA, the richest country on earth, which has the most expensive healthcare in the world, provides woefully inadequate cover. Surely then, the question for us here in the UK is, why is the conservative led coalition seeking to establish the same format here?

 

Even after the devastation of the Second World War, in times of true austerity, the UK managed to establish the NHS and provide healthcare for all.

 

Today, in the aftermath of the financial scandal of 2008, the tories and their political friends are using the term 'austerity' to justify the removal of our healthcare, putting it in the hands of the cynical multinational corporations, and we are now hearing the inevitable demands to bring in charges.

 

Do we wish to see a functioning public service or private, profit led businesses in control of our health care?

[Plain Talker]

Really? - I never knew that. Perhaps on your planet (whatever it is) there is an America where life is like that, but on mine, it doesn't quite work that way.

 

In the America on my planet. the poor have medicaid (rather like the NHS. No charge)

 

Those who are over 65 have medicare. - again, no charge.

 

(BTW, those on medicaid and medicare are treated in the same hospitals and receive the same standard of treatment as do those who have paid insurance.)

 

Those in the middle can (if they are working for a company which is large enough to operate a 'group scheme' join that group scheme at often very modest rates. Some companies/organisations offer free (or not very expensive) cover after you've retired.

 

The people who have a problem are those who do not work for an organisation which has a group scheme. They have to take out individual cover which (IMO) is too expensive. (I was talking to a man a couple of months ago who has a good job, but with such an organisation. His individual policy (for himself and his wife) costs about £1000 a month - and that - IMO, is far too expensive.

 

Then there are others who are fairly young, fit and healthy who say: "Why should I bother with health insurance? - I'm young and fit. I don't need it."

 

Those who do not have insurance (for whatever reason) are not denied treatment - that would be illegal - but they have another problem.

 

I had some surgery in December. The insurance company sent me a copy of the paid bill.

 

The hospital billed me (but it went to my insurance company) $253,000.

 

The Insurance company said: "$253,000. That's nice. We'll pay you $38,000 in full settlement."

 

The hospital said: "OK, that'll do."

 

My share of that particular bill was $34. - Probably rather less than I would've paid on the 'free' NHS, because:

 

My wife didn't have to pay to park when she visited me,

 

I didn't have to pay to watch TV (not that I do)

 

I didn't have to pay to use the phone.

 

There's also that nice, eminently wise Mr Obama whose health plan comes into effect next year.

 

There are approximately 30 million Americans without insurance. When that plan comes into effect, there will be none.

 

Those who can't afford to pay the full premium will have a large part paid for them. Those who 'can't be bothered' to get insurance will be required to do so. (Why should the insurance companies be forced to insure only those likely to be sick? Insurance is a 'Pool' system.

 

Anyway, with effect from next year, all Americans will have insurance.

 

Of course, 30 million new patients will require at least 30,000 new doctors (1000 patients per doctor is, I am told, a reasonable figure in urban areas.) Much of 'flyover land' is not urban, but I'm sure that nice Mr Obama has got a plan ready to solve that problem

 

I don't know where those 30,000 new doctors are - Mr Obama is keeping that a secret.

 

I wouldn't be too surprised to see teams of American recruiters in the UK and Europe during the next some months, however.

 

Do you have evidence to support these claims? I had a number of pre-existing ailments when I was first insured. My insurers have paid out a significant amount to treat them and - under US Public Law - they are not permitted to cap the amount I claim.

 

But of course, you know better.

 

But doesn't Medicaid have limits on what treatments are available to the sick person? for example, only allowing the cheapest treatment, and not the most effective?

 

Are you sure that Medicaid doesn't refuse cover for certain illnesses, particularly pre-existing ones? That was my understanding of how medicaid works.

[Rupert_Baehr]

No and No.

 

Medicaid is for poor people - it does not refuse to treat somebody because they have been ill before.

 

There is a Federal law which prohibits ambulances from refusing to carry an uninsured person and another (or perhaps it's part of the same law) which prohibits a hospital from refusing to treat them.

 

AFAIK, the bill for medicaid treatment goes to the State.

 

The biggest problem for medicaid patients is that they usually don't have a family doctor, they have to go to the ER for every treatment and the waiting time in an ER could be 3 or 4 hours (particularly if higher -priority patients come in)

 

The standard of treatment is suposed to be the same, - the patients are treated in the same room using the same doctors using the same skills and the same equipment.

[Staunton]

To repeat my point, the NHS is being systematically attacked. The corporate sector is carving up our hospitals and clinics, and now we are hearing a growing clamour from profit hungry capitalists that charges be introduced.

 

The coalition government that has refused to address astonishing levels of tax avoidance, and that has given tax cuts to millionaires, is telling us that services for ordinary people are unaffordable.

 

If we wish to save anything of our NHS we must take notice of what is happening and act quickly or all will be lost..

[Clown Shoes]

To repeat my point, the NHS is being systematically attacked. The corporate sector is carving up our hospitals and clinics, and now we are hearing a growing clamour from profit hungry capitalists that charges be introduced.

 

The coalition government that has refused to address astonishing levels of tax avoidance, and that has given tax cuts to millionaires, is telling us that services for ordinary people are unaffordable.

 

If we wish to save anything of our NHS we must take notice of what is happening and act quickly or all will be lost..

 

Why dont you focus on one issue at a time?

 

Your point about NHS funding & tax avoidance are ignorant.

 

Yes i guess a bit of money from Starbucks would help a bit but doesnt address the major issue that the NHS in its current format is not sustainable.

 

The current system for dentistry seems to work. The people who can afford it pay and the people who cant afford it get a basic set of treatments that insure that they are not living life in pain.

[SevenRivers]

Maybe expectant parents in Barrow would have rather paid for a decent hospital maternity service than their babies die only for the health service and government to cover it up to avoid a political scandal ahead of an election.