If that does happen, Im getting you and Parker, and we can run the midwestusmarine wrote:
you want to start a warlord faction with me?SgtHeihn wrote:
I am pretty sure we will be living in a 3rd World Nation in 10yrs.
Well, admittedly, our government does suck compared to that of many smaller countries like Norway. We're way too large and varied in cultures for socialized medicine to work as well here as it would in a place like Norway.Kmarion wrote:
I'd like to meet you guys in the corner and rub one out to the idea of free healthcare for all. But that bitch of whore I call logic gets in the way. The only illusion here is your idea of a life long guarantee. The government can not coddle everyone indefinitely. It is simply unsustainable, especially here. Anyone with the slightest amount of knowledge in United States government efficiency can see that. The worst kind of parasites are the ones we have elected. Skimming off of the top, ignoring our borders, and pushing through laws that only a monkey would agree with. You have way too much faith in government. I on the other hand have been paying attention to what our "leaders" are (in?)capable of.Diesel_dyk wrote:
The freedom to sleep under a bridge is an old saying that refers to the illusion of choice or the illusion of freedom. There is no real choice here if the choice is between insurance company A and insurance company B. I choose neither, I choose govt C. you say that the govt would be treating people like children, fine, it would still be a far sight better than an insurance company treating people like a commodity where denial of healthcare = profit. We need less parasites in this country and more people who provide valuable and helpful services to the people.Kmarion wrote:
Odd how I've manage to avoid that in all of my glorious freedom. To say you've been discarded is to admit you need someone else to make your way. That's not freedom, that is treating people like children. It's saying that you aren't good enough to succeed on your own. I realize that sometimes down an out isn't always the result of bad choices, but we've got safety nets. Improving on those nets does not automatically equal 'Nationalized Healthcare'. If you need help finding free local healthcare options I'll provide a list of state health organizations.
@ Turq.. . Socialized medicine has NEVER been successful on our scale. It's a nice thought but some of us have to be realistic. Healthcare reform can come in many different ways. My main contention is that the only real success will be in the choices the States make. With our diversity it is imperative that it is managed locally.
Guess what BN, you might want to take a seat for this one, we have both also.
And the reference to states rights is really a conservative rear guard action to prevent any movement in this area at all. Just look at the CHIPS program in Texas, the federal govt had the money available but the Texas decided not to fund it. We really don't need that kind of inaction. We should have a national program funded by the federal govt, with the rules set up by the federal govt. US citizenship should have some meaning in a national sense and the states can STFU on this one.
States have a national sense. Pick up the constitution every once in awhile and read the part about the common defense. The idea that there is some sort of deficiency in a sense of nationality is so absurd it's laughable. The position that the way to accomplish unity is by picking my pocket to pay for your boo boo's is ab-so-fucking-lutely hilarious. However, the comedy gold comes in the belief that government managed industries here in the US aren't about profit also.
The curse of diversity is that the only thing we can often agree to do in America is to either argue with each other or exploit each other. We're also a lot more materialistic than many other nations. Our individualism is great for defending our freedoms, but it really sucks when trying to set up anything for the collective good.
It would seem that about the only things we can agree to spend shitloads on are the military, bailouts, and lobbyism.
Meanwhile, we end up spending tons of money on all the privatized services we consume. It's no wonder we keep so little in savings.
Still, Diesel's right about the illusion of choice. You're basically forced to pay one insurance company or another when it comes to health insurance, because if you go for any extended period of time without it... well, you know how much the rates get jacked up when you try to buy later.
The government might run socialized systems, but the insurance companies run ours.
So the only "choice" we have is to either get raped by the government or raped by corporations. Sometimes, we even get raped by corporations through the government.
That's regulation. Something I'm a little more open minded too. Cleary we have a problem. But if you think the government cares about your health consider this. We are spending more in "bailouts" then we are in healthcare. The problem is of course that we cant afford the bailouts neither. But know this my fellow Americans, the government would rather line a bankers failed bankers pocket then invest in your longevity.Turquoise wrote:
That's why I suggested simply socializing the insurance. It would be a nice compromise.Kmarion wrote:
@ Turq.. . Socialized medicine has NEVER been successful on our scale. It's a nice thought but some of us have to be realistic. Healthcare reform can come in many different ways. My main contention is that the only real success will be in the choices the States make. With our diversity it is imperative that it is managed locally.
Guess what BN, you might want to take a seat for this one, we have both also.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The biggest problem with the US health care imo is the cost ... you have to many middlemen making insane profits that should have been channeled back into a health care system that is cheaper and containing more freedom and choice for the users ...
*The health insurance system privatized "steals" money, a government run insurance like Turq mentioned should be cheaper as a non profit department.
*The pharmacists overcharge medicine adding to a total cost that should be much lower ...
*A country like the US with such a large populace could benefit from centralized specialist hospitals runned through a joint socialised insurance system to benefit the people rather than making a profit for excess businesses like the private insurance companies ...
*Free hospital choice and doctors that could focus on health rather than economy would benefit the American people ...
And some political officers to control it all and it's perfect
*The health insurance system privatized "steals" money, a government run insurance like Turq mentioned should be cheaper as a non profit department.
*The pharmacists overcharge medicine adding to a total cost that should be much lower ...
*A country like the US with such a large populace could benefit from centralized specialist hospitals runned through a joint socialised insurance system to benefit the people rather than making a profit for excess businesses like the private insurance companies ...
*Free hospital choice and doctors that could focus on health rather than economy would benefit the American people ...
And some political officers to control it all and it's perfect
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
God i love the NHS.
That situation is completely--completely--dependent on the insurance company and policy you choose. And is far from the norm, since--by law--insurance MUST cover anything that can lead to loss of limb, eyesight, or life. Period.Diesel_dyk wrote:
Ditto to what Turq saidTurquoise wrote:
If you go to the ER, yes.BN wrote:
I just want to get a scope of the US system without watching Sicko.
Can a US citizen walk into a hospital and receive healthcare and not have to pay?
Do you need a card or ID or something?
If you don't go to the ER, no, except in certain states that have more comprehensive programs.
A lot of the access to care varies by state here.
I'd also like to add that you still have to pay for an ER visit, but some people simply don't pay (like the really poor or illegals).
Plus even if you have insurance and for example go in for a broken arm. The insurance only covers so much. You will still get multiple bills from the radiologist, the x-ray place, the doctor who set the cast and the hospital where you went. And each party who bills you plays a game with you where they send a bill out for the whole amount hoping that you will pay the full amount so that they will collect from you and then collect again from the insurance company. And god forbid you need surgery on that arm cause then you have to also pay bills for the surgeon, the anthetist, and the hopsital stay.
Private health insurance is not the utopia that some make it out to be. Even people who do have good insurance can and do go bankrupt with all the extra billing.
You make it sound like the patient must pay everything. At worst, under the vast majority of plans here in the US, the patient pays a minimal co-pay for each visit/hospital stay. Even then, the vast majority of plans have a catastrophic cap for out of pocket expenses per beneficiary/family.
And then there's the whole "bad old doctors going after you for money". If the doctor or hospital accepts your insurance (as most do), then they are obliged--legally--to accept the terms of payment offered by that insurance. In emergency situations (like a broken arm, for instance), your insurance company is obliged--legally--to pay at least the Federal government's "allowable" charge for a given billing code...and the hospital is obliged--legally--to accept that. They can attempt to get some of the difference from the patient, but that is much more rare than you have implied and the hospitals generally accept very lenient payment options.
It's not perfect--by any stretch of the imagination. But it's not the horror you try to paint it as.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
It's better than privatised but it still has a ton of problems. With the NHS you can walk into pretty much any hospital and they will treat you. All you have to worry about is getting better. The only time they will tell you you may have to pay is if you're a non-resident (ie on holiday) and have no travel insurance, and even then most doctors I've met will treat first, ask questions later. If it transpires the person is an illegal immigrant or something then it comes down to the doctors' conscience and sense of ethics to decide, but the government won't exactly keep track of where the resources end up. There are cons of course, your taxes aren't sky high so you can't expect a uniformly world-class service everywhere. Resources can be pretty thin in areas and the lack of beds is notorious. In america even for non-urgent care you can be seeing a specialist tomorrow if you wanted to (and if you're covered ofc), no appointments, shorter waiting lists etc.Barrakuda777 wrote:
God i love the NHS.
It certainly looks like it sucks from the outside, 20% of GDP on healthcare, compared with 5-10% in most other nations.It's not perfect--by any stretch of the imagination. But it's not the horror you try to paint it as.
And American Doctors get paid way too much.Varegg wrote:
The biggest problem with the US health care imo is the cost ... you have to many middlemen making insane profits that should have been channeled back into a health care system that is cheaper and containing more freedom and choice for the users ...
*The health insurance system privatized "steals" money, a government run insurance like Turq mentioned should be cheaper as a non profit department.
*The pharmacists overcharge medicine adding to a total cost that should be much lower ...
*A country like the US with such a large populace could benefit from centralized specialist hospitals runned through a joint socialised insurance system to benefit the people rather than making a profit for excess businesses like the private insurance companies ...
*Free hospital choice and doctors that could focus on health rather than economy would benefit the American people ...
The Australian system seems to work reasonably well, basic healthcare provided more or less free, if you want a better service you can buy insurance - costs are capped at a reasonable level even if you become ill.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
The current US system has to change drastically, I don't think anyone disagrees with that. It will utterly cripple the US economy if it continues.
It's not only twice as expensive as most rich countries (despite treating proportionately less people than most countries) but the costs are rising faster than almost any other country. Tort reform can save some money from the system but will only realistically scratch the surface of the problem.
The main problems stem from
a) Insane admin costs due to having hundreds of insurance companies with hundreds of different policies, making hospital admin departments a nightmare. There's little that can be done to sort this short of the far more efficient nationalized system. The current system wastes hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
2) Overpaid doctors. Due to limited funding for training doctors and immigration restricitions limiting the number of fully qualified foreign doctors from moving to the US to work, this effectively acts as a huge protectionist barrier that keeps the wages of US doctors well above that of other countries. If US doctors were paid at European levels it would save $80 billion a year and rising.
3) Drug costs. The current US patenting system for drugs massively over-rewards companies that research drugs. Alternatives include either slashing patent protections to a more sensible figure of simply allowing the government to do it's own research rather than part funding private companies to do it. The new drugs could then be produced in the private sector with no patent costs. Estimated saving from changing the patenting system range from $100-200 billion per year. These costs are rising exponentially.
It's not only twice as expensive as most rich countries (despite treating proportionately less people than most countries) but the costs are rising faster than almost any other country. Tort reform can save some money from the system but will only realistically scratch the surface of the problem.
The main problems stem from
a) Insane admin costs due to having hundreds of insurance companies with hundreds of different policies, making hospital admin departments a nightmare. There's little that can be done to sort this short of the far more efficient nationalized system. The current system wastes hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
2) Overpaid doctors. Due to limited funding for training doctors and immigration restricitions limiting the number of fully qualified foreign doctors from moving to the US to work, this effectively acts as a huge protectionist barrier that keeps the wages of US doctors well above that of other countries. If US doctors were paid at European levels it would save $80 billion a year and rising.
3) Drug costs. The current US patenting system for drugs massively over-rewards companies that research drugs. Alternatives include either slashing patent protections to a more sensible figure of simply allowing the government to do it's own research rather than part funding private companies to do it. The new drugs could then be produced in the private sector with no patent costs. Estimated saving from changing the patenting system range from $100-200 billion per year. These costs are rising exponentially.
I don't know what a doctor in the US makes, depends on many factors but doctors tend to make a good amount of money in most countries be it NHS or whatever arrangement the different countries have so I really don't factor their wages into the equation ...Dilbert_X wrote:
It certainly looks like it sucks from the outside, 20% of GDP on healthcare, compared with 5-10% in most other nations.It's not perfect--by any stretch of the imagination. But it's not the horror you try to paint it as.And American Doctors get paid way too much.Varegg wrote:
The biggest problem with the US health care imo is the cost ... you have to many middlemen making insane profits that should have been channeled back into a health care system that is cheaper and containing more freedom and choice for the users ...
*The health insurance system privatized "steals" money, a government run insurance like Turq mentioned should be cheaper as a non profit department.
*The pharmacists overcharge medicine adding to a total cost that should be much lower ...
*A country like the US with such a large populace could benefit from centralized specialist hospitals runned through a joint socialised insurance system to benefit the people rather than making a profit for excess businesses like the private insurance companies ...
*Free hospital choice and doctors that could focus on health rather than economy would benefit the American people ...
The Australian system seems to work reasonably well, basic healthcare provided more or less free, if you want a better service you can buy insurance - costs are capped at a reasonable level even if you become ill.
Doctors have a very good education and deserves to be well paid ... it's not like they are fixing helicopters or other similar misc work
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Have you any idea how much insurance a Doctor needs to carry?PureFodder wrote:
Tort reform can save some money from the system but will only realistically scratch the surface of the problem.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
same in America. what are you talking about?Dilbert_X wrote:
The Australian system seems to work reasonably well, basic healthcare provided more or less free, if you want a better service you can buy insurance
This.Kmarion wrote:
Have you any idea how much insurance a Doctor needs to carry?PureFodder wrote:
Tort reform can save some money from the system but will only realistically scratch the surface of the problem.
The net income a doctor gets is about the same between the UK and here due to all of the malpractice insurance they have to pay. Surgeons may make several hundred thousand simoleans, but a huge chunk o' change is going to their insurance because, as one of the lecturers in my health science seminar said last semester about being a physician, "you will get sued."
The difference in number of tort cases between the US and UK is only around 30-40% an in the UK you're more likely to win a tort case.DesertFox- wrote:
This.Kmarion wrote:
Have you any idea how much insurance a Doctor needs to carry?PureFodder wrote:
Tort reform can save some money from the system but will only realistically scratch the surface of the problem.
The net income a doctor gets is about the same between the UK and here due to all of the malpractice insurance they have to pay. Surgeons may make several hundred thousand simoleans, but a huge chunk o' change is going to their insurance because, as one of the lecturers in my health science seminar said last semester about being a physician, "you will get sued."
To keep costs down in Britain, we just socialized medical malpractice insurance.
In places like Canada (I don't know about UK or Australia) its a social contract that people get healthcare, but in return it is really really hard to sue the doctors. That is an arrangement that I think most people can live with espcially if there is a regulatory body that will take away a doctor's medical license if he does something truly incompetent.PureFodder wrote:
The difference in number of tort cases between the US and UK is only around 30-40% an in the UK you're more likely to win a tort case.DesertFox- wrote:
This.Kmarion wrote:
Have you any idea how much insurance a Doctor needs to carry?
The net income a doctor gets is about the same between the UK and here due to all of the malpractice insurance they have to pay. Surgeons may make several hundred thousand simoleans, but a huge chunk o' change is going to their insurance because, as one of the lecturers in my health science seminar said last semester about being a physician, "you will get sued."
To keep costs down in Britain, we just socialized medical malpractice insurance.
The problem with the US is that the doctors receive more money because they have to pay for big time insurance and they think that they are worth that money and that the money they pay out is direct hit on what they perceive is their worth - so they hate it. What they refuse to realize is that people get monetarily screwed by the healthcare industry and when they sit on a jury they screw these guys right back. This increases the costs and the cycle repeats.
Moral of the story is that in a nationalized system the doctors get less money in gross but aren't sued as much and don't have to pay for super high malpractice insurance, so they make about the same net. The real winners in the US model and the parasitic insurance companies who make money on health insurance and make money on malpractice insurance. They got us coming and going.
GW Bush, the good ole pretend cowboy wanna be from Connecticut has harmed this country for decades to come.
yee haw?
yee haw?
Maybe that's an option. We are already spending much more then you in insuring ourselves. I'm not here to say insurance companies aren't making gobs of money. But if you look at the whole picture and try to understand why premiums go up you'll see that it isn't usually out of the blue. They have a profit margin that they maintain from day one. They are fully aware of the heat they are under now, but when they get hit by outrageous lawsuits we all do.PureFodder wrote:
The difference in number of tort cases between the US and UK is only around 30-40% an in the UK you're more likely to win a tort case.DesertFox- wrote:
This.Kmarion wrote:
Have you any idea how much insurance a Doctor needs to carry?
The net income a doctor gets is about the same between the UK and here due to all of the malpractice insurance they have to pay. Surgeons may make several hundred thousand simoleans, but a huge chunk o' change is going to their insurance because, as one of the lecturers in my health science seminar said last semester about being a physician, "you will get sued."
To keep costs down in Britain, we just socialized medical malpractice insurance.
Also try and understand that your model in no way resembles what a nationalized health care system would look like here. Scale absolutely matters when tracking where the money is going and how it is being spent. Your system is absurdly small when compared to what the American population would need. So your constant comparisons just simply aren't indicative of what the results here would be.
The (uncited) 30-40% difference is a lot. Especially when you consider the success rate our payouts.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
UKDesertFox- wrote:
This.Kmarion wrote:
Have you any idea how much insurance a Doctor needs to carry?PureFodder wrote:
Tort reform can save some money from the system but will only realistically scratch the surface of the problem.
The net income a doctor gets is about the same between the UK and here due to all of the malpractice insurance they have to pay. Surgeons may make several hundred thousand simoleans, but a huge chunk o' change is going to their insurance because, as one of the lecturers in my health science seminar said last semester about being a physician, "you will get sued."
US
Just an example in USD
UK= $ 49,747
US= $140,764
The other fields can be an even greater difference.
UK
US
More half the time we go to the doctor over here we meet with someone who has an foreign accent. We've got some serious malpractice insurance to carry (usually for good reason). But it still keeps the talent coming here.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I notice many of you use this argument over and over that the very size of the American populace makes socilized medicine impossible and that it can't work in the US, goes for other debates also btw ... why is that?Kmarion wrote:
Also try and understand that your model in no way resembles what a nationalized health care system would look like here. Scale absolutely matters when tracking where the money is going and how it is being spent. Your system is absurdly small when compared to what the American population would need. So your constant comparisons just simply aren't indicative of what the results here would be.
*US 300 million people
*Great Britain 58 million people
*France 65 million people
*Germany 82 million people
Is there a magic line I'm not aware of that makes it all so much more difficult when you get past lets say 100 million people?
Why does scale matter?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Are all separately managed programs are they not?Varegg wrote:
I notice many of you use this argument over and over that the very size of the American populace makes socilized medicine impossible and that it can't work in the US, goes for other debates also btw ... why is that?Kmarion wrote:
Also try and understand that your model in no way resembles what a nationalized health care system would look like here. Scale absolutely matters when tracking where the money is going and how it is being spent. Your system is absurdly small when compared to what the American population would need. So your constant comparisons just simply aren't indicative of what the results here would be.
*US 300 million people
*Great Britain 58 million people
*France 65 million people
*Germany 82 million people
Is there a magic line I'm not aware of that makes it all so much more difficult when you get past lets say 100 million people?
Why does scale matter?
It's basic logic. If you've got one single plan with hundreds of million of people involved you can plan on losing your ass in the bureaucracy (Pork attachments, vying for special interest etc). Responsibility become a blur and the critique of a program with millions of variables is extremely difficult. The only possible answer is to manage said programs locally.
I've said that I would be more understanding to a state managed system. If the voters want it - mutual recognition could be worked in. Until then I'm forced to acknowledge the inevitable face palm our government has already dealt us when try to decide whats best for our future.
Go under one single EU plan then you might have a leg to stand on. Until then ..
Xbone Stormsurgezz
That is about to happen, EU is getting closer and closer to what you describe as one unit with joint laws ... and when that happens it will contain roughly 500 million people ... I haven't the complete overview of who is or isn't running a NHS like health care but I believe most of them are ...Kmarion wrote:
Are all separately managed programs are they not?Varegg wrote:
I notice many of you use this argument over and over that the very size of the American populace makes socilized medicine impossible and that it can't work in the US, goes for other debates also btw ... why is that?Kmarion wrote:
Also try and understand that your model in no way resembles what a nationalized health care system would look like here. Scale absolutely matters when tracking where the money is going and how it is being spent. Your system is absurdly small when compared to what the American population would need. So your constant comparisons just simply aren't indicative of what the results here would be.
*US 300 million people
*Great Britain 58 million people
*France 65 million people
*Germany 82 million people
Is there a magic line I'm not aware of that makes it all so much more difficult when you get past lets say 100 million people?
Why does scale matter?
It's basic logic. If you've got one single plan with hundreds of million of people involved you can plan on losing your ass in the bureaucracy (Pork attachments, vying for special interest etc). Responsibility become a blur and the critique of a program with millions of variables is extremely difficult. The only possible answer is to manage said programs locally.
I've said that I would be more understanding to a state managed system. If the voters want it - mutual recognition could be worked in. Until then I'm forced to acknowledge the inevitable face palm our government has already dealt us when try to decide whats best for our future.
Go under one single EU plan then you might have a leg to stand on. Until then ..
Even though it still probably will be serviced country by country there is nothing in the way of the US doing the same state by state so I don't quite buy the bureacracy card and that it would be so difficult to manage ... maybe bureacracy works different in the states but i doubt it ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Interesting. Do you have a link to the EU plan proposition?Varegg wrote:
That is about to happen, EU is getting closer and closer to what you describe as one unit with joint laws ... and when that happens it will contain roughly 500 million people ... I haven't the complete overview of who is or isn't running a NHS like health care but I believe most of them are ...Kmarion wrote:
Are all separately managed programs are they not?Varegg wrote:
I notice many of you use this argument over and over that the very size of the American populace makes socilized medicine impossible and that it can't work in the US, goes for other debates also btw ... why is that?
*US 300 million people
*Great Britain 58 million people
*France 65 million people
*Germany 82 million people
Is there a magic line I'm not aware of that makes it all so much more difficult when you get past lets say 100 million people?
Why does scale matter?
It's basic logic. If you've got one single plan with hundreds of million of people involved you can plan on losing your ass in the bureaucracy (Pork attachments, vying for special interest etc). Responsibility become a blur and the critique of a program with millions of variables is extremely difficult. The only possible answer is to manage said programs locally.
I've said that I would be more understanding to a state managed system. If the voters want it - mutual recognition could be worked in. Until then I'm forced to acknowledge the inevitable face palm our government has already dealt us when try to decide whats best for our future.
Go under one single EU plan then you might have a leg to stand on. Until then ..
Even though it still probably will be serviced country by country there is nothing in the way of the US doing the same state by state so I don't quite buy the bureacracy card and that it would be so difficult to manage ... maybe bureacracy works different in the states but i doubt it ...
Yes the states have many programs.. need a list?
You don't have to buy it. I live here and I have history on my side. I probably understand the need for reform waaaayyy more than you do. My premium went from went from $106 to $280 over the last year. I went to a class today where a coworker was sharing his side of financial distress. Almost entirely stemming from medical bills (His son is losing his vision). He lost his home, filed chapter 7 bankruptcy, was living out of an RV, and has sold all of his belongings.... twice over. His sons surgeries have cost him and the insurance company nearly half a million dollars. He and his family are just trying to survive.. if ever there was a case for assistance this was it. He and his wife have qualified for Medicaid (awesome news). They have no choice but to use food stamps and wic money just to provide for themselves. I understand, believe me. I don't just read about it.. I feel it.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
EU health link, some other clickable links on the same page that provides more information about it ...Kmarion wrote:
Interesting. Do you have a link to the EU plan proposition?Varegg wrote:
That is about to happen, EU is getting closer and closer to what you describe as one unit with joint laws ... and when that happens it will contain roughly 500 million people ... I haven't the complete overview of who is or isn't running a NHS like health care but I believe most of them are ...Kmarion wrote:
Are all separately managed programs are they not?
It's basic logic. If you've got one single plan with hundreds of million of people involved you can plan on losing your ass in the bureaucracy (Pork attachments, vying for special interest etc). Responsibility become a blur and the critique of a program with millions of variables is extremely difficult. The only possible answer is to manage said programs locally.
I've said that I would be more understanding to a state managed system. If the voters want it - mutual recognition could be worked in. Until then I'm forced to acknowledge the inevitable face palm our government has already dealt us when try to decide whats best for our future.
Go under one single EU plan then you might have a leg to stand on. Until then ..
Even though it still probably will be serviced country by country there is nothing in the way of the US doing the same state by state so I don't quite buy the bureacracy card and that it would be so difficult to manage ... maybe bureacracy works different in the states but i doubt it ...
Yes the states have many programs.. need a list?
You don't have to buy it. I live here and I have history on my side. I probably understand the need for reform waaaayyy more than you do. My premium went from went from $106 to $280 over the last year. I went to a class today where a coworker was sharing his side of financial distress. Almost entirely stemming from medical bills (His son is losing his vision). He lost his home, filed chapter 7 bankruptcy, was living out of an RV, and has sold all of his belongings.... twice over. His sons surgeries have cost him and the insurance company nearly half a million dollars. He and his family are just trying to survive.. if ever there was a case for assistance this was it. He and his wife have qualified for Medicaid (awesome news). They have no choice but to use food stamps and wic money just to provide for themselves. I understand, believe me. I don't just read about it.. I feel it.
Essentials of Cross-border healthcare for EU & EFTA (EFTA=Lictenstein, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland)
On 2 July 2008, as part of the Renewed Social Agenda, the Commission adopted a draft Directive on the application of patients' rights in to cross-border healthcare, which provides a Community framework for safe, high quality and efficient cross-border healthcare, by reinforcing cooperation between Member States and providing legal certainty over the rights of patients to seek healthcare in another Member State.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Cross border health care? How is that the same as everyone being forcefully taxed into one single plan? From what I gather the cross border policy amounts to just outsourcing the care but having each members state still pay for each of it's own. (Which essential amounts to what I am saying.. state managed health care.) The bills are sent back to the nation of origin. Where the actual coverage is. Again, not even close to falling under one plan paying out for over 320 million people.
Good idea though, you guys desperately need to share your hospitals. They are overburdened and I know the wait times can be insane. We've always had the ability to cross our state lines if need be though.
Good idea though, you guys desperately need to share your hospitals. They are overburdened and I know the wait times can be insane. We've always had the ability to cross our state lines if need be though.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Yeah, it really does sound like socializing medical insurance would fix most of our problems right there.