Re: *** universal healthcare (was Re: Spread the word, commie Finns)

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 03:03:35 +0000, Rev Turd Fredericks escaped from the
straight jacket long enough to type:

> Nicholas Thomas wrote:
>> Rev Turd Fredericks wrote:
>>
>>>Yep, and that's my complaint. You can imagine my shock when I opened a
>>>bill for $18,000 from the hospital. Turns out some insurance bureaucrat
>>>didn't think they should have to pay for my treatment because I was
>>>refered for treatment by a specialist and not my primary care physician.
>>>I had to pay out of pocket for the specialist which is totally stupid.
>>>My dr. didn't have a clue as to what I had, and rather than permanently
>>>lose the use of my arm, I managed to see a neurologist (who you normally
>>>have to wait 6 months to see) who was a collegue of my wife and saw me
>>>during his lunch hour. Great healthcare system we have here. It's not
>>>the dr's and it's not the facilities, it's the total greed inherent in a
>>>system which is run for profit by people who don't have the slightest
>>>medical education and really have no business being in charge of peoples
>>>health.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> To me, this is the crux of the matter. Over here, I've got a choice - do
>> I pay £££ for medical insurance and get treated at a private
>> hospital? Or do I erly on the free NHS? The single thing that decides me
>> is that an NHS clinic/surgery/hospital will be looking at my ailment; a
>> private hospital will be looking at my wallet (or alternatively, my
>> health insurance forms).
>>
>> Being paid for by the taxpayer does mean that the NHS is a bureaucratic,
>> money-wasting monolithic beast with little or no incentive to change,
>> true... and waiting lists are longer than I would like (although it is
>> rare that somebody dies as a result of op waiting lists)... but it also
>> has the advantage of actually being able to put the patient's interests
>> first, and since the tax is %-based, it means that nobody has to to pay
>> more than they can afford for their healthcare. f you can afford more -
>> good on you - get a private hospital to trreat you, and pay for it. If
>> not - then the NHS can probably get your ailment sorted before you croak
>> :).
>>
>> I think that the main problem, money-wise, with the NHS is that they're
>> under-utilising their budget, and nobody ever bothers to negotiate
>> half-decent prices for drugs & treatments. I remember an article a few
>> years back where the makers of some drug or another were selling pills
>> made in the UK, at half of the NHS price, to the USA. Apparently, they'd
>> contact the NHS several times to see if a lower pricec could be
>> negotiated, but noody got back to them... bureaucracy at it's best? :(
>>
>> xF,
>>
>> ...Nick
> I hate Government bureacracy as much as the next guy, but I hate corporate
> greed and incompetance even more. There are no depths that the insurance
> companies are not willing to stoop in order to make a buck. At least the
> government can change, but insurance companies never will, it's their
> business to be sleazy and underhanded.

Canadians seem to confuse the difference between public insurance and
public health care a lot, they see them as one in the same. there is
nothing wrong with private medical centres, however i have a lot of bones
to pick with private insurance systems, as i said before, medicine is not
a business, its a money flush cause the patient still dies no matter what,
some sooner some later and some at an early age despite a great deal of
effort by the doctors. the private insurance companies are trying to make
money, its not that they are bad people, but they would have to be bad
business men to insure some cases, and they always try and find a way not
to pay, their end goal is a profit NOT a healthy patient

--
Solbarth
.