However,say you go to have your baby in a private hospital and problems occur and deliver a very premature baby.
The private hospital refer’s them back to the N.H.S .

This keeps the extra insurance low because they won’t have to be charged over a million pounds for the complication.

Some treatment may be quicker in the U.S.A ,but only if you can pay.It doesn’t account for the million’s with no access to help.

The U.S isn’t alone in it’s belief of working hard to achieve your goals.

We recognise that people can fall on hard times be irresponsible parent’s and develop chronic illness.

It is sad to see that it is ‘Un American’ to believe health is based on ability to pay.

It seems a very selfish reasoning and does not reflect well on your countries up bringing.

It is not right to say we want Big government controlling us. It is what value system we have as a society .

Our healthcare system has its problems, but it’s still remarkable. Many cross the border from Canada and Mexico to get treatment in the US. The Canadian system, so the saying goes, works fine, as long as you keep the American system next door. For most routine health issues, it works fine. But if there is an urgent matter (e.g. a painful knee that needs replacing, or a suspicious nodule that needs a biopsy), and there’s a 3-month waiting period, many cross the border and get treatment quicker in the US.

“…but would it mean people doing dangerous sports are liable?” I pick on smokers and the obese because currently these two groups are severely taxing our health system. We don’t have an epidemic of football players or skiers driving up healthcare costs, but we do have a diabetes epidemic doing as much, mostly caused by obesity. Heart disease continues to be the number one killer in America -to which obesity and smoking both contribute. Besides, how would you define/tax dangerous sports? It’s like trying to define/tax “dangerous” vs. “safe” sex practices. But it’s easy to define/tax a cigarette (which is toxic even in moderate amounts) or a low-nutrient snack.

‘Socialised Medicine’ is a term Americans seem only to use. It is not just supported by ’socialist’s’,which again a word not used much.Politically you can not put us in boxes like you can in the U.S.

The N.H.S is strongly supported in theory.Obvious problems are debated daily.Elections here are won and lost on education and health.To improve the system not get rid of it.
We not stupid people,just different on how we view the needs of society around us.

As i work in it ,i see the problems. No way can it be cradle to grave.Much is targeted at pre-emptive care,immunisation,contraceptives,std’s,screening,smears,mammograms,prostate,bowel cancer,diabetes before they need to be hospiltalised .

Sin tax is debated,help is offered to obese and smokers to improve their quality of life,but would it mean people doing dangerous sports are liable?

The abuse of the N.H.S at the moment is of immigrants flooding the system.However at no point to any of us feel we shouldn’t treat them as human beings.

It’s OUR action’s that reflect’s a nation. I am proud of that .

The beauty of the free market is that you (or perhaps your employer) have a choice of dozens of different insurance carriers Don’t like CIGNA? Don’t buy their insurance! Organize your fellow employees to petition a change in carrier!

Goy rants on how insurance companies use my money to pay for executive pay raises, employees and their benefits, as well as countless properties and subcontracted services. Surprise! You’ve just described any of a number of large US companies. The Big Three auto makers, for example, must cover the cost of large CEO salaries (and their famous corporate jets), unionized employees and their benefits, including health benefits and pensions, as well as a large array of subcontractors, all with the cost of selling YOU a car. The subcontractors he demeans, including those overseas, are usually contracted because they are cheaper/more efficient, so it costs LESS to employ them than to do the work “in house.” This includes “clearinghouses,” which insurance companies use to encourage electronic billing and CUT THE COST of manual processing, many which today are FREE for providers. …

Goy rants on how insurance companies use my money to pay for executive pay raises, employees and their benefits, as well as conutless properties and subcontracted services. Surprise! You’ve just described any of a number of large US companies! The Big Three auto makers, for exmple, must cover teh cost of large CEO salaries (and their famous corporate jets), unionized employees and their benefits, including health benefits and pensions, as wellas a large array of subcontractors, all with the cost of selling YOU a car. The subcontractors he demeans, including those overseas, are usually contracted because they are cheaper/more efficient, so it costs LESS to employ them than to do the work “in house.” This includes “clearinghouses,” which insurance companies use to encourage electronic billing and CUT the COST of manual processing, many which today are FREE for providers.

Goy goes off on how many properties CIGNA owns, and how much its CEO earns ($15 million) to prove how all health insurance companies waste money. How odd he singles out CIGNA’s (and Caremark’s) CEOs, who happen to be two of the top three highest paid CEOs in the health insurance industry. The CEO of industry giant Humana averaged less than ONE-FIFTH this amount, at 2.7 million. It still sounds like much, bt it’s called BUSINESS in America. This is a quote from Forbes:

“After a 38% collective pay raise in 2006, chief executives of the 500 biggest companies in the US…took a pay cut of 15% last year…In total, these 500 executives earned $6.4 billion in 2007. AN AVERAGE of $12.8 million APIECE. (My emphasis) By the way, Safeway’s and Marriott’s CEOs each averaged 20 million over the past 5 years. Still want to shop/lodge with them? These salaries may be upsetting, given the recession, but’s hardly an ill unique to healthcare.

In terms of CIGNA’s business model, here’s a quote that may enlighten you, from Wikinvest:
“…three-quarters of Cigna’s health insurance business isn’t really insurance. Cigna manages health plans for companies who self-insure, agreeing to pay employee’s helth care costs. Employees get Cigna cards and access to Cigna’s negotiated rates with doctors, and Cigna handles billing. BUT THE EMPLYER BEARS THE RISK OF PAYING FOR CARE when employees get sick… Over 75% of Cigna’s 2007 enrollment consisted of self-funded ADMINSTRATIVE-ONLY plans… Cigna also differs from its competitors in that over 68% of the company’s pretax operating income came from INVESTMENT INCOME… almost four times that of other large national health account providers.” (My emphasis)

CIGNA receives more than it pays out because 75% of it’s “affiliates” really arent. It is a compay, which in order to stay afloat, must generate income. It does so partly by INVESTING (e.g. in properties it later sells “for profit”).

The beauty of the free market is that you (or perhaps your employer) have a choice in dozens of different insurance carriers. Don’t like CIGNA? Don’t buy their insurance! Organize your fellow employees to petitiona change in carrier!

The premise that health care in America is expensive because health insurance carriers waste money on themselves, not on you, is false. If it were true, then the rise in health costs would be primarily attributable to rising premiums, not actual rising health COSTS (the cash differential in between being used to feed the industry). Yet the Congressional Budget Office declared in 2008 that Hospital and physician costs are the largest proportion of cost, and “most of the long-term growth in total health care spending has resulted from growth in either or both of these categories.” Why the rise in hospital/provider costs? “About half of all growth in health care spending in the past several decades was associated with changes in medical care made possible by advances in technology.” And while there has been a rise in health insurance costs, the CBO also reported in 2008 that ADMINISTRATIVE costs for private insurance only represent about 12% of premiums, i.e., 88% was NOT.

If there were some form of giant industry-wide conspiracy to raise the cost of medicine, it would have to include the U.S. government, whose programs (Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP/VA) account for over 45% of health care expenditures. So unless you’re willing to assume America’s largest insurer, the US government, is part of the conspiracy, the argument falls flat.

Goy thinks we can all pay our health costs out of pocket (and don’t need insurance), that we should PLAN for health costs like we plan for replacing a car. Insurance is used to manage risk. And though “quotidian” healthcare costs are manageable, we all run a risk of major healthcare costs, which can be very high. This is NOT like replacing a car. I may not know when I’ll replace my car, but I do know the cost. Replacing a car is predictable in the sense that unless you’re well off, you know it will NOT be more than $50,000.It’s essentially capped. If you’re uninsured, health care costs could be 50k, but they could quickly balloon to 300k or more. Add to this lost wages, particularly if you’re in the hospital for weeks on end. And during your convalescence, your spouse may need to help you at home, so he/she may have to take time off work as well. Healthcare costs are more akin to the cost of replacing a house. Do you have homeowners insurance? I bet you do, because you know that, though unlikely, if your home were ever to burn down you’d be hard pressed to replace it. Same goes with health care. The fact is, in 2001, medical causes were cited by about half of bankruptcy filers in the US. I bet replacing a car didn’t even make the top ten.

Why have costs gone up so fast? Technological advances, high cost of labor (much of medicine, unlike other fields, CANNOT be mechanized), high cost of litigation (or costs incurred for fear of litigation), as well as the high cost of end-of-life care. I’d add perhaps overuse as well. We’ve become accustomed to having “free” medicine (e.g., the ER) or seek treatments that benefit our lives, but perhaps are not essential (Viagra?). The pharmaceutical industry pushes new drugs that are slightly better than the old ones, but cost triple (in part to cover R&D, litigation, but also to increase their bottom lines). Ultimately we get into the law of diminishing returns: progressively smaller increments in benefit vs. large increments in cost.

There’s also the shared cost (though goy claims otherwise) of covering the uninsured. When I go to the hospital, my insurance is “overcharged” to offset the cost of non-paying customers. Guess who the insurance company is going to pass on that charge to, as higher yearly premiums? From Wikipedia: “The costs of treating the uninsured must often be absorbed by providers as charity care, passed on to the insured via cost shifting and higher health insurance premiums, or paid by taxpayers through higher taxes.”

So how do we cut costs? Someone commented on the possibility of making all insurance carriers non-profit, an interesting option, though I don’t know if legally the government can force them to do so.
Evidently some savings could come from streamlining the insurance industry. There are hundreds of carriers in the US, many using their own forms and codes. Streamlining the billing/claim process by standardizing forms/payment rules/codifications, and making the entire process electronic (vs. paper) would save millions. Tort reform to reduce the direct and indirect legal costs (including unnecessary tests ordered more for lawyers’, not patients’ benefit) could do the same. More competition (from out-of-state carriers) could drive down premium prices. I personally would advocate higher sin taxes, including snacks, to make those who incur greater risk pay a higher premium.

And no, despite what “goy” says, I would not socialize all of medicine. The resulting inefficient bureaucracy would make costs only rise faster. But some form of government health program for the underclass is necessary. People should pull their own weight. The point is, some CANNOT (the elderly, the disabled). Given the staggering costs, which have NOT risen because of insurance company schemes, the government is the only institution that can help these people. I agree that each of us should be repsonsible for our health. But some individuals are unwilling to do so, and make dumb decisions in their lives (like smoking/overeating). Yet they still benefit from government programs. They should not be refused treatment, but shouldn’t we find a way they put in a little more into the collective pot (through sin taxes)?

Government run public health is also essential to stop the spread of diseases which could affect not only the uninsured, but all of society. Consider government-sponsored free STD clinics to stop the spread of syphilis, government clinics for DOT therapy for TB -to make sure patients actually take their meds and stop spreading the disease, government sponsored vaccines, like the flu shot for the elderly, or the nationwide campaigns to vaccinate kids for polio, or measles in the 1950s (some funded with private money), and the Ryan White funds for low-income AIDS patients. (The latter will not be cured, but can greatly reduce their risk of transmission if on treatment)

Ultimately, the cost of healthcare will still be expensive. You can’t get world-class healthcare on a shoe string. Cost-cutting measures, at least in the public domain, would have to start cutting benefits. One approach was the so-called Oregon Plan, whereby funds were distributed in a utilitarian fashion. Programs that served the “greatest good” (e.g. vaccines) were funded first. Expensive programs that benefited the few (e.g. a heart transplant, which costs hundreds of thousands, and helps only one person) were left at the bottom of the list. At some point on the list, the funds would be estimated to run out, and anything below that point would NOT be funded. It’s a draconian measure, whereby some would not receive public funds for expensive procedures. But then again, while the government should provide basic healthcare, it’s arguable if things like transplants would qualify as “basic.” Perhaps here’s where private funds (charities, foundations) could kick in.

Perhaps there are other solutions (love to hear “goy’s” input, if it were anything other than “get rid of the insurance companies”).

We will have to face difficult choices. The current left-leaning government will likely make things more, not less expensive for all of us. My advice? Get the best insurance you can afford, and get it while you’re young. It may mean having less cash for other personal endeavors, but in the end, health insurance should be a priority -your life may literally depend on it.

‘Wrong. None of that is free. It is all paid for by someone, somewhere. Eventually, you’ll figure that out.’

I was not implying that tinkerbell spreads her fairy dust over the N.H.S.
Obviously it paid for by taxes. You can get to see your doctor within 24 hrs knowing that if you needs meds it will be £6.90.
If you have a chronic illness you are exempt.
Therefore not losing your job,your house and some your family,never mind your life.
That scenario has bigger impact on soceity then providing health care.

‘the European media has been demonizing America for years – pretty much ever since the day Al Gore failed to carry his own home state in the 2000 Election.’

I cried on 9/11,’shoulder to shoulder’,did you see the que’s around the world to sign condolence books?
‘We are all Americans’
The same after Katrina.Which Bush refused.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/dis_hur_kat_int_aid_res-hurricane-katrina-international-aid-response

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/dis_hur_kat_int_aid_res-hurricane-katrina-international-aid-response.

‘They are basically doing whatever they think it will take to buy the votes that will keep them “elected’

I think that is called democracy. I thought you were big on that.You have killed enough people in it’s name.

‘Anyway, we don’t need to “learn” from a country that has one/fifth our population and a completely different economic system.’

So why are you comparing the U.S and the U.K?

To believe that you can learn nothing from other countries,their experience and history is so arrogant.