So what have the septics got against health care for all?

[R1Geezer]

Just watched "Sicko" ok , I know Michael Moore tends to cherry pick facts to suit his views but even so I thought that the content did seem indicative of US health care in practice. Like the guy whose firm was employed solely to find a reason to reject a claim on the tiniest technicality. Of course he covers the health service in Britain, Canada and France and makes a big thing of taking Some 911 firemen to Cuba for treatment. As far as I can tell the main omissions are the waiting times for operations etc but hey, I normally can't stand the bloke but found his portayal of US medical care as shocking in it's callousness and sheer indifferent brutality, you can't pay you go untreated. So what are the US afraid of? isn't it basic civilised behaviour we are talking about? Yes NHS costs are high and need looking at for efficiency etc but I take comfort in the fact that if you get injured/ill you get treated regardless. It seems that all but the very rich (medicare accepted) have to take their chances with the insurance companies as to whether they will be treated even if they have insurance, 50 million do not! Your thoughts please!

[Sqad]

Jake......my reasons for citing Cuban Health Service superior to NHS is, I supposes anecdotal, from articles that I have read and also from colleagues who have had working experience in Cuba.

Further comparison would depend upon what you are comparing.....waiting time for operations, cancer survival rate, survival from heart operations, cost per patient etc.

[Gromit]

Sqad

-----------------
If I were a middle-income American living in Seattle or Chicago, I could almost certainly rely on superior care than if I lived in Birmingham or Newcastle.
---------------------

Another league table for you.

http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/preventable_deaths_country_ranks_1997-1998_2002-2003_2008.html

It shows the British NHS fairing better on preventable deaths amenable to Health Care than the US.

[Sqad]

Gromit/ jake.

We can compare and contrast all modalities of healthcare between various nations throughout the world, but the bottom line is:

We cannot any longer fund our NHS by taxes alone as we are haemorrhaging billions annually.

Alternative methods have to be sought.

[rov1200]

The answer lies nearer to home. Just take the Dental profession. Under the NHS the amount of work ensured that dentists were kept extremely busy. Now that most of them have gone private the work occupies less than 50% of the time than before yet they are personally better of financially. They are also able to offer a better service.

The lessons learnt are that by giving 100% free cover only damages those that work in the service or those receiving treatment. This Labour government has destroyed the idea of private health which would have taken some of the burden off the NHS.

Equality for all means everyone gets a lousy service.

Something the Americans have fathomed out.

[jno]

Sqad, you also think the new AB is a 'total disaster', when to the naked eye it seems to be pottering along quite well - problems with the latest posts panel, a few useful features lost, but the archive up and running again for the first time in years and posting reasonably quick and easy for most. So it's possible that you're overdoing the hyperbole.

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/ChatterBank/Question806430.html

[Sqad]

jno......just my opinion.

[jno]

you're entitled to it, Sqad, but you risk becoming the boy who cried wolf.

[Sqad]

jno.......by goodness, thanks for the advice, I am not sure how I could live with that title..." the boy who cried wolf."

[jno]

or Private Frazer running around saying 'We're all doooomed'.

[Sqad]

jno...indeed

[jackthehat]

On American Healthcare, I think the final word rests with P.J O'Rourke - "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free."

[fredpuli47]

Mr O'Rourke is very amusing but he doesn't explain why American healthcare costs Americans twice the percentage of their national wealth than our free healthcare does and vastly more than France's costs of theirs. If he stuck to facts he wouldn't be so amusing.Of course, if America cares to leave some 40 miliion without it, he may think that's good He may also, somehow, be so bad at maths that he thinks that the vast inefficiency of having insurance companies , with all their staff doing assessments of premium, eligibility, exemptions, extra charges, denial of cover and all the rest, is bound to be cheaper than a standard 'free' universal healthcare system.