Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Hello America Info Please ?
I'm getting confusing messages from the States. Do you want a health service for all your people as it is in the rest of the developed world or not ? Please explain your answers ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by modeller. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Each to his/her own shaneystar.... I would not begrudge you your choice to do so... neither should you begrudge ours, no? If you're happy with your limited freedom... ceding it, as it were, to a government beaureaucrat, more power to you. Not my cup of tea, so to speak...
One other comment... in response to the lengthy stay with seemingly uneccessary treatments... It does happen here... often. I have friends and a son-in-law that are physicians and all report prescribing tests and treatments tht may not be necessary with one goal in mind... called CYA... so they have less chance of being sued for malpractice if they can show in court they did eveyrthing possible for the patient...
One other comment... in response to the lengthy stay with seemingly uneccessary treatments... It does happen here... often. I have friends and a son-in-law that are physicians and all report prescribing tests and treatments tht may not be necessary with one goal in mind... called CYA... so they have less chance of being sued for malpractice if they can show in court they did eveyrthing possible for the patient...
I don't begrudge you or your fellow Americans anything Clanad and haven't said I begrudge you anything .
My limited freedom ? What are you whittering about .
You are welcome though to your capitalist society that begrudges the poorest members of that society the rights to basic healthcare .
If your government spent less on warmongering the poorer people might get better medical treatment .
Goodnight .
My limited freedom ? What are you whittering about .
You are welcome though to your capitalist society that begrudges the poorest members of that society the rights to basic healthcare .
If your government spent less on warmongering the poorer people might get better medical treatment .
Goodnight .
Seems discussion like this always take the turn towards ill temper... suppose it comes with the territory of being an American on a British site.... All I can say is perhaps we should remember and curtail our war mongering ways instead of leaving row upon row of white crosses all over Europe with no expectation of conquered territory...
interesting point about tiny newborns - whether preterm or small for their dates. Both of these are associated with poor health, drug and alcohol use, poor nutrition etc etc all of which are, again associated with poverty and deprivation, and often poor access to health care. Also interestingly, providing midwifery care very positively affects the rates of premature and retarded growth babies, especially when this care is available early on in pregnancy. Even in the expensive health care system that is available in the us, you cannot provide a universal autonomous midwifery service. When I say midwife I do not mean an obstetric nurse who follows the rules and dictates of the medical profession. Also interestingly in prevous posts, sweden was mentioned as having impressive survival cancer rates. Sweden is one of the most socially aware countries I have ever visited, as I believe is all of Scandinavia. The people there truly believe that it is the responsibility of all to provide social and health needs and accept the fact that these things do not come free, they have to be paid for through taxation. Even if you do not uptake these services when you are young and paying your taxes, you will have them there for you when you become either old, sick or unable to work for whatever reason. Sweden is most definitely NOT a socialist country, actualy despite having universal health care free at the point of use to all, neither is the UK. Very far from it despite what some americans seem to think.
I think you are now moving away from my original question which was : Do you
( Americans ) want a health service as it is in the rest of the developed world ?
In view of the fact that you voted for a man whose main plank was to have a National Health Service for all. Why has your support evaporated ?
Now I know his opponents use the adjective Socialist to describe anything they don't want and a NHS is descibed as Socialist Medicine but it now appears his own supporters are not backing him either. Why has it changed so dramatically ?
( Americans ) want a health service as it is in the rest of the developed world ?
In view of the fact that you voted for a man whose main plank was to have a National Health Service for all. Why has your support evaporated ?
Now I know his opponents use the adjective Socialist to describe anything they don't want and a NHS is descibed as Socialist Medicine but it now appears his own supporters are not backing him either. Why has it changed so dramatically ?
I'll try to be uncharacteristically brief modeller... (hopefully).
In a word, most Americans have no argument with some reform of the health care system, especially to control the ever increasing costs. It's just that the Bill's proposed by the Senate and House of Representatives would so radically change the system that (when the costs were better understood) it had the potential of bankrupting the country and severely limiting service and restricting choice, especailly for the large older segment of our population. Had cooler and wiser heads prevailed and some "baby steps" been proposed to limit costs and cover more people equitably there would have probably been little debate.
To describe the monstrosity proposed by Obama and the Liberals would take more space and time than either of us can afford. It's enough to state the proposed bill in the House was well over 2,000 pages long, and most Representatives had not even read it, much less understood its ramifications.
Obama's own base of far left wing liberals are mad at him since the Bill didn't go far enough in making it a single payer system run entirely by a huge new bureaucracy and costing trillions (with a "T") of dollars...
Thanks for your interest.
(Contd.)
In a word, most Americans have no argument with some reform of the health care system, especially to control the ever increasing costs. It's just that the Bill's proposed by the Senate and House of Representatives would so radically change the system that (when the costs were better understood) it had the potential of bankrupting the country and severely limiting service and restricting choice, especailly for the large older segment of our population. Had cooler and wiser heads prevailed and some "baby steps" been proposed to limit costs and cover more people equitably there would have probably been little debate.
To describe the monstrosity proposed by Obama and the Liberals would take more space and time than either of us can afford. It's enough to state the proposed bill in the House was well over 2,000 pages long, and most Representatives had not even read it, much less understood its ramifications.
Obama's own base of far left wing liberals are mad at him since the Bill didn't go far enough in making it a single payer system run entirely by a huge new bureaucracy and costing trillions (with a "T") of dollars...
Thanks for your interest.
(Contd.)
(Contd.)
By the way, Sweden's "all in" tax rate is over 66%, while the U.S.'s is about 42%.
The U.K.'s appears to be about 5% to 10% higher than the U.S., but it's difficult to make comparisons due to the variables. We have, for example 10 States that have no added State income Tax, but others add anwhere for 5% to 10.2% of the National Income Tax. We have no VAT, for example. Is it true you pay an added tax for support of the State Church as I've seen referenced? Amazing if true... such support is prohibited by our Constitution.
Finally, as I've stated before, each countries citizenery ought to be able to determine under which form of government and taxation/services they wish to live, no? Americans do have a propensity for maximum individual freedom and duly elected governments have run aground on the shoals of imposing any additional restrictions on such freedoms... perhaps more than other countries emphasize such niceties...
By the way, Sweden's "all in" tax rate is over 66%, while the U.S.'s is about 42%.
The U.K.'s appears to be about 5% to 10% higher than the U.S., but it's difficult to make comparisons due to the variables. We have, for example 10 States that have no added State income Tax, but others add anwhere for 5% to 10.2% of the National Income Tax. We have no VAT, for example. Is it true you pay an added tax for support of the State Church as I've seen referenced? Amazing if true... such support is prohibited by our Constitution.
Finally, as I've stated before, each countries citizenery ought to be able to determine under which form of government and taxation/services they wish to live, no? Americans do have a propensity for maximum individual freedom and duly elected governments have run aground on the shoals of imposing any additional restrictions on such freedoms... perhaps more than other countries emphasize such niceties...
the article about sweden is interesting its true, and they have moved more to the right although they have actually never really been a socialist country, in the true sense of the word. I think the point that people subscribing to this thread are trying to make is that it is not right that people who are unable to provide for themselves, for whatever reason, inadequacy, lack of education, illness, disability should be left to live or die just so that people who are more capable, and advantaged should be able to keep everything they have. It is a sign of a civilised (and supposedly christian) society that those who have are willing to share with those who have not. The us is supposed to be a much more christian country than the uk but does not always show signs of true christianity, i.e. following the teachings of example of Jesus. Just in case anyone thinks I am trying to convert here, I am actually not a follower of any organised religion. The way that the english health service has been portrayed to citizens of the usa is nothing less than disgraceful. The idea that we have boards of people who meet to decide who lives and dies is actually laughable. What we do in the uk is look at the evidence to see if a treatment is actually effective, rather than give it just because someone has seen an advert and has gone to their doctor and asked for it and get it because they can pay for it. Our system is far from perfect I will agree, but despite its problems, I dont know anyone who would change it for what the usa has.
I would just take one more opportunity to respond to all of your well thought ideas.
Here in the U.S., there are very few, if any citizens that are left to die on the streets. It just never happens for a variety of reasons, but none of those reasons are due to the intervention of the government who has always... always been shown to be inefficient and ineffective, taking nearly 50% of every tax dollar (regardless of it source) just to run their respective bureaus. If the entire 100% of the dollar (or some significantly larger percentage) remained in the citizens hand and allowing them to make their own decisions, efficiency and effectiveness would both be enhanced, in my opinion.
In socialized medicine, as I've already stated, access to the services has to be limited one way or another. The same is true in our own system. But... if the citizen were made to be responsible for their own health, not only would they be more careful of their health, they would deffinitley find costs dramatically reduced.
(Contd.)
Here in the U.S., there are very few, if any citizens that are left to die on the streets. It just never happens for a variety of reasons, but none of those reasons are due to the intervention of the government who has always... always been shown to be inefficient and ineffective, taking nearly 50% of every tax dollar (regardless of it source) just to run their respective bureaus. If the entire 100% of the dollar (or some significantly larger percentage) remained in the citizens hand and allowing them to make their own decisions, efficiency and effectiveness would both be enhanced, in my opinion.
In socialized medicine, as I've already stated, access to the services has to be limited one way or another. The same is true in our own system. But... if the citizen were made to be responsible for their own health, not only would they be more careful of their health, they would deffinitley find costs dramatically reduced.
(Contd.)
(Contd.)
Two examples... here in the U.S. (and I suspect any country that still allows private payment) Lasix corrective eye surgery and cosmetic surgery, especially breast enlargements are not covered by any insurance, nor, of course by the government. You want it you pay up front for it. Guess what... not only has the science and safety of both (and other such examples) increased dramatically, the cost has decreased exponentially. I can remember about 10 years ago, the precursor of Lasix cost about $2,700 per eye and the outcome was often less that desired. Today, the cost is about $250 per eye and the procedure is much safer and predictable. The same types of effects apply to breast enlargement and other such procedures.
Not only that, but I've walked in to my doctor's office and after he suggested a procedure for correcting persistent sinus infections (not uncommon in my profession as a commercial pilot) I actually haggled with him to pay him cash on the barrell head rather than submitting it to my insurance company. Savings of nearly 25%! Give the patient the control and both the health system and the patient will work better...
Thanks again for the lively debate!
Two examples... here in the U.S. (and I suspect any country that still allows private payment) Lasix corrective eye surgery and cosmetic surgery, especially breast enlargements are not covered by any insurance, nor, of course by the government. You want it you pay up front for it. Guess what... not only has the science and safety of both (and other such examples) increased dramatically, the cost has decreased exponentially. I can remember about 10 years ago, the precursor of Lasix cost about $2,700 per eye and the outcome was often less that desired. Today, the cost is about $250 per eye and the procedure is much safer and predictable. The same types of effects apply to breast enlargement and other such procedures.
Not only that, but I've walked in to my doctor's office and after he suggested a procedure for correcting persistent sinus infections (not uncommon in my profession as a commercial pilot) I actually haggled with him to pay him cash on the barrell head rather than submitting it to my insurance company. Savings of nearly 25%! Give the patient the control and both the health system and the patient will work better...
Thanks again for the lively debate!
its been an interesting discussion for sure and i know that people who disagree usually have to agree to disagree!! I have had many heated discussions with my friends in the usa, some of whom agree and some not, but we always remain friends afterwards. Sign of civilised people I guess. Despite its problems, and there are many, and I would absolutely agree dysfunctional government, I love the usa and have done since my first visit in 1978. My kids love it and now my grandkids do as well. I guess you dont have to like the system to love the people and love the country.
May I thank you all for your contributions. Being as you asked the question Clanad about the financing of the Church of England. No there is no direct payment by the state all religions must support themselves. We are not a religious country less than 10% of the country regularly attend any place of worship. Sweden I believe is even less. Once again thanks for all your views.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.