Why We Don't Want "Free" Medical Care

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:31:58 +0100, "Turan Fettahoglu"
wrote:

The case with the cancer patient showed that the NHS does not work properly.
But in the US the lady might have no insurance at all, which is still worse!


Not necessarily. This is part, frankly, of simplistic views of the US
system for your information. The lady would qualify for medicaid most
probably and be covered there. Or for medicare and be covered there
if old enough. Or under state programs. Or under the VA. Etc, etc.
This is one of the great misperceptions about the US system. Just
because someone doesn't have health insurance hardly means that they
don't get medical care. Some don't but certainly not all.

It is just plain rubbish if the NHS insists "either we pay what we
consider appropriate or you pay the lot and we do not pay a penny".
It's not rubbish, it's the rule, you either have NHS treatment or you
have private treatment.
You're talking ********. My girlfriend is a state registered dietitian
but works privately (treating food and environmental allergies and
conditions like autism - she'd much prefer to be doing this in the NHS
but it doesn't have any vacancies in the field). She gets referrals
from NHS practitioners regularly. Sometimes local health boards fund
her consultations, sometimes the patient pays. None of her patients
have ever been told they can't have both, and the system is perfectly
capable of coordinating treatment between the NHS and other therapists
(e.g. a hospital specialist refers a patient to her, she prescribes a
regimen for the patient and her recommendations end up back in an NHS
doctor's file on the patient).
and your gf provides her services free to the NHS? I don't think so.
My daughter works for the NHS. Any private treatment that is done
outside the NHS has to be paid for.

As I said, sometimes the health board pays, sometimes the patient does.
Health boards within the NHS can pay anybody they want to get the
treatment done - it's not a regular practice, and health boards vary a
lot in how often they do it, but the system allows for it.

It wouldn't surprise me if some NHS employees (like your daughter)
didn't know this could happen. Most of them won't encounter it and
aren't affected by the possibility in any way, so why should they
know about it?

==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k === http://www.campin.me.uk ====
Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557
CD-ROMs and free stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:49:07 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:31:58 +0100, "Turan Fettahoglu"
wrote:

The case with the cancer patient showed that the NHS does not work properly.

In most cases the NHS works very well. The NHS has a transparent policy of
prioritising the use of resources. The NHS doesn't cope well with people abusing
the system. For example, people, who go to their doctor to get a sick note so
that they don't have to go to work and then don't show up for appointments for
the treatment that is prescribed. If I don't show up for an appointment in NL I
get a bill for the time I have wasted.

Then why does one hear so much about all it problems then? To my
knowledge, the French system is the one that works well and, perhaps,
the German one. My son's experience with the Dutch one was abysmal.
Virtually no choice in doctors because they are all full up. Getting
one that was marginally competent at best. Having his daughter
patently underprescribed an antibiotic for a simple ear infection that
made the problem worse not better. Etc, etc. He would have been
better off NOT showing up for the appointment. And where was this
patient abusing the NHS system anyway? It was the system abusing her.

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:43:20 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:30:08 +0100, "Turan Fettahoglu"
wrote:

Patients "cannot, in one episode of treatment, be treated on the
N.H.S. and then allowed, as part of the same episode and the same
treatment, to pay money for more drugs," the health secretary, Alan
Johnson, told Parliament.

And why not??

There is no reason.

The German health insurance system has stopped paying for "everything", but
the consequence is that you have to pay the difference yourself - up to a
certain percentage of your income.

or take out private insurance to cover the difference?

Gee, that US system again.



It is just plain rubbish if the NHS insists "either we pay what we consider
appropriate or you pay the lot and we do not pay a penny".

It's not rubbish, it's the rule, you either have NHS treatment or you have
private treatment.

Which was exactly the problem wasn't it?

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:08:57 -0000, "William Black"
wrote:


"Turan Fettahoglu" wrote in message
...

But in the US the lady might have no insurance at all, which is still
worse!

Not from the point of view of many people in America.

Remember, sickness is God's punishment, being poor is a sign that you are
evil.

And you're the blithering idiot and exploiter of India that called the
US system ghastly weren't you? How do you like your ghastly one now
genius?

Following up to (John Kulp) wrote:

America's like what? I was just talking about my family. Another
well informed libeller.

it came across as "america".
--
Mike
Remove clothing to email

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:00:15 +0000, Mike.......
wrote:

Following up to (John Kulp) wrote:

A thread got going here a few months ago where a few
geniuses decided to--well--libel the US system as if their's was
perfect.

there is a lot of US bashing gets posted here, just like loads of
Europe bashing, cheese eating surrender monkey type stuff, europeans
dont wash, all that.

Very true. All pretty juvenile.


Funny, I found that offensive and completely ignorant (which
it was) so, as I said, turnabout is fairplay. If you don't like
getting it, don't hand it out. Also funny was that no one that I
remember thought that discussion was inappropriate for this group
while it was going on but suddenly do now. And it wasn't my breath
anyway if you can read. It was the NY Times.

we spotted that.

Some apparently didn't.


And, finally, if nobody
has any time for the US system, why do so many Canadians, for example,
flock here to get treatment they can't get in Canada?

presumably because thiere are drawbacks in the Canadian system too.
There probably are in all systems.

Yep. Exactly the point.

Following up to Mike....... wrote:

Can you not understand that I simply posted it here?

And why did you?

OK answer elsewhere
--
Mike
Remove clothing to email

Following up to (John Kulp) wrote:

Funny, the US view of UK healthcare is supposedly unrealistic
but the UK view of the US system presumbably is not.

I think its fair to say that the UK gets more detailed news of the US
than the US gets of Europe.

The NY Times is a leftist newspaper which is all for universal coverage here so just
what interest does it have in doing what you claim-

Its reporting it because its *news*.
--
Mike
Remove clothing to email

It's not rubbish, it's the rule, you either have NHS treatment
or you have private treatment.
Which was exactly the problem wasn't it?

It isn't a problem because it isn't true.

The American hack who wrote what you quoted was lying.

==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k === http://www.campin.me.uk ====
Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557
CD-ROMs and free stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts