Health care outside the U.S.

[Subie59]

Another example of how ridiculous the US health care system is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_301947.html

[sowise]

I think in every society and system there are always going to be the stories of failures of the system. I mean we have people at the emergency room dying while waiting to be admitted. Did that have anything to do with whether or not they had health care? No, it was piss poor triage and inability to assess criticality of the patients. (I am referring to an older incident of a hispanic male in california that I remember being a big deal for a bit). Anyway I am sure the Canadians dislike the Americans bashing their system and the Brits probably don't like it much either. I do believe that the wait for basic services under a socialized system is longer. I do know people from outside the country who have come here for procedures that they could not readily get in their own countries with gov. health care. I think all the statistics floating around are a huge joke and are far from credible. Some include illegal aliens others don't, some exclude people making over 50k a year that choose not to have health care or 65+ yo that have not registered for medicare or equivalent. Our country has mismanaged social security, medicare, medicaid, and VA health care. Not to mention other non health related endeavors. The bottom line is even with the current bills they are discussing it barely makes a dent in the uninsured and opens to many doors for scams and future tax increases because our government can never do anything below budget or exactly on budget. It is all one big political joke and power play. I like my current health insurance. My girlfriend has no insurance currently and is about to go in for surgery on a broken finger. We went to the emergency room and were seen within 2 hours. Can't say they did much. A doctor friend of ours did free xrays on her hand so we didn't have to pay for that. We were referred to a hand specialist and we are looking at $1700 -$2700 for the operation depending on how bad it is once they get in there. So when I look at this I think well a low low insurance policy for a single person whose job doesn't pay part of it would cost lets say $200 a month (probably more). That is $2400 a year right there and god forbid someone needs that much insurance yearly not to mention there is still deductables. So ok our costs are higher well we don't have limits on litigation so we need tort reform we need tax breaks not penalties on people who get insurance. We pay a higher premium for medications so that those same medications can be sold at a lower cost to other countries. We can easily fix our system why replace it with another broken one.

Edit: this news is somewhat interesting and something we as Americans are hoping to avoid.
Iraq Veteran Dies of Cancer After Lung Transplant From Heavy Smoker
Monday , October 12, 2009

An Iraq war veteran from Britain died after receiving cancerous lungs from a heavy smoker.

Matthew Millington, 31, a corporal in the Queen’s Royal Lancers, had the operation to save him from an incurable respiratory condition that was discovered in 2006. At the time, he was given two years to live unless he had a transplant.
A donor was found and the double lung transplant went ahead in April 2007 at Papworth Hospital in Cambridge, England. But the organs were from a donor who was believed to have smoked 30 to 50 cigarettes a day.
Six months after the transplant — a tumor was discovered.
Eventually, an investigation into the hospital pinpointed a string of problems, including difficulties with communication, record-keeping and patient handover.
In Millington’s case, it was found that an X-ray technician had failed to spot the growth of the cancerous tumor in its early stages.
As for the he hospital, it defended using smokers’ lungs for transplants, saying that all organs were screened rigorously.
"Without using such lungs, many more people would die without receiving a transplant," a hospital spokesperson said.

Or this article:
Doctors Wrongly Diagnose Woman With Cancer, Cut Off Her Leg
Monday , October 12, 2009

A 72-year-old woman was wrongly diagnosed with cancer, but didn’t find out until after she had her leg amputated, London’s Daily Mail reported.
Doctors told Doreen Nicholls she had a rare form of cancer and that she would die without the amputation surgery.
However, after Nicholls had the leg removed, tests revealed she was cancer-free.
Birmingham’s Royal Orthopedic Hospital in the U.K. agreed to pay Nicholls a “substantial six-figure sum,” according to Nicholls’ attorney.
“I shall never forgive the hospital for what they’ve done to me,” Nicholls told the newspaper.

[newsvx]

Originally Posted by sowise

I think in every society and system there are always going to be the stories of failures of the system. I mean we have people at the emergency room dying while waiting to be admitted. Did that have anything to do with whether or not they had health care? No, it was piss poor triage and inability to assess criticality of the patients. (I am referring to an older incident of a hispanic male in california that I remember being a big deal for a bit). Anyway I am sure the Canadians dislike the Americans bashing their system and the Brits probably don't like it much either. I do believe that the wait for basic services under a socialized system is longer. I do know people from outside the country who have come here for procedures that they could not readily get in their own countries with gov. health care. I think all the statistics floating around are a huge joke and are far from credible. Some include illegal aliens others don't, some exclude people making over 50k a year that choose not to have health care or 65+ yo that have not registered for medicare or equivalent. Our country has mismanaged social security, medicare, medicaid, and VA health care. Not to mention other non health related endeavors. The bottom line is even with the current bills they are discussing it barely makes a dent in the uninsured and opens to many doors for scams and future tax increases because our government can never do anything below budget or exactly on budget. It is all one big political joke and power play. I like my current health insurance. My girlfriend has no insurance currently and is about to go in for surgery on a broken finger. We went to the emergency room and were seen within 2 hours. Can't say they did much. A doctor friend of ours did free xrays on her hand so we didn't have to pay for that. We were referred to a hand specialist and we are looking at $1700 -$2700 for the operation depending on how bad it is once they get in there. So when I look at this I think well a low low insurance policy for a single person whose job doesn't pay part of it would cost lets say $200 a month (probably more). That is $2400 a year right there and god forbid someone needs that much insurance yearly not to mention there is still deductables. So ok our costs are higher well we don't have limits on litigation so we need tort reform we need tax breaks not penalties on people who get insurance. We pay a higher premium for medications so that those same medications can be sold at a lower cost to other countries. We can easily fix our system why replace it with another broken one.

Edit: this news is somewhat interesting and something we as Americans are hoping to avoid.
Iraq Veteran Dies of Cancer After Lung Transplant From Heavy Smoker
Monday , October 12, 2009

An Iraq war veteran from Britain died after receiving cancerous lungs from a heavy smoker.

Matthew Millington, 31, a corporal in the Queen’s Royal Lancers, had the operation to save him from an incurable respiratory condition that was discovered in 2006. At the time, he was given two years to live unless he had a transplant.
A donor was found and the double lung transplant went ahead in April 2007 at Papworth Hospital in Cambridge, England. But the organs were from a donor who was believed to have smoked 30 to 50 cigarettes a day.
Six months after the transplant — a tumor was discovered.
Eventually, an investigation into the hospital pinpointed a string of problems, including difficulties with communication, record-keeping and patient handover.
In Millington’s case, it was found that an X-ray technician had failed to spot the growth of the cancerous tumor in its early stages.
As for the he hospital, it defended using smokers’ lungs for transplants, saying that all organs were screened rigorously.
"Without using such lungs, many more people would die without receiving a transplant," a hospital spokesperson said.

Or this article:
Doctors Wrongly Diagnose Woman With Cancer, Cut Off Her Leg
Monday , October 12, 2009

A 72-year-old woman was wrongly diagnosed with cancer, but didn’t find out until after she had her leg amputated, London’s Daily Mail reported.
Doctors told Doreen Nicholls she had a rare form of cancer and that she would die without the amputation surgery.
However, after Nicholls had the leg removed, tests revealed she was cancer-free.
Birmingham’s Royal Orthopedic Hospital in the U.K. agreed to pay Nicholls a “substantial six-figure sum,” according to Nicholls’ attorney.
“I shall never forgive the hospital for what they’ve done to me,” Nicholls told the newspaper.

SOWISE,
Certainly lots to consider, however, a question for you re your girlfriend's situation:
- even though you might pay as much in a low end insurance policy that would cover the finger / hand surgery, what would happen if (God forbid) she were to be in an accident and responsible for her own care and had to stay in the hospital for an extended time. An insurance policy looks much better then, doesn't it? And it still blows my mind that well over half of personal bankruptaces are the result of medical bills - and 50% of those are for people that HAVE insurance.

This is not an easy problem to solve ...

Harry

[sowise]

I agree with you about emergency medical care and how something small like say her appendix ruptures that would cost a fortune I am sure. The doctors were actually very willing to work with us on cost. However her lack of insurance has more to do with her being a student. She worked full time at LOWES with full medical benefits. Signed up for design school with the understanding her job would also reimburse for school which they will. However their loop hole was they wouldn't work with her schedule unless she went part time. As a part time employee she lost her benefits and in turn they still refused to work with her schedule. So she took some kind of leave of absence which allowed her to keep her job and go to school she just wasn't getting any money or insurance. Once she went back during a school break they refused to work with her and basically she had to quit in order to continue with school.
The point of all of that? Well the government wonders why so many young people don't have insurance, part of that is because up until 18 they are typically covered under their parents insurance after that if they are students living under the same roof or school dorm as full time students their coverage is extended. Women typically use medical services more often than men (thank god for birth control). There are changeable things that can be done to the current system to fix who does and does not have health care. As well as denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. Tort reform, and tax breaks. Use some of the big tobacco money that they keep blowing on commercials and anti smoking ads. There are billions of $ wasted throughout the government and loose laws and loopholes. What about using money from drug dealer seizures and Al Qieda (sp?) accounts that we have taken over. No need for replacement of our system just some corrections and improvements, our government has its fair share of corruption that nothing has been done about in decades. Lets focus on fixes for all of our damaged systems and societal woes before making new ones. Just my opinion...

[dromano]

Originally Posted by Trevor

As I understand it, this was the very first country to introduce social security. The term may have even been activated here.

I am not a socialist, I firmly believe in free enterprise, but there are alternative commercial facts involved.

There are huge benefits from an insurance scheme which envelopes everyone. The only perceived disadvantage, is a lack of competition, which can have a negative affect on quality. But, an insurance scheme funded by everyone, is the ultimate insurance, on the basis of commercial fact. Be very sure it works. Strangely, public opinion and pride of purpose, do provide good quality control. After all it is everyone's business.

Humans being what they are, nothing is perfect. So what, the insurance afforded is still very, very good. The universal scheme covers everything urgent. I have private health insurance, so that will receive immediate attention, should I ever require a hip replacement, or what ever. Without it I would have to wait, but I would not be denied. One could class it as a luxury.

Fairly recently, there have been three occasions when I have required care due to accidents. The service and outcome was 100%+. My son suffered a severe injury playing football. The best of surgery and ongoing treatment, as well as accident compensation, to cover time absent from lecturing at university. Cost, zero. The ongoing treatment is now exceeding twelve moths. He has only now had metal straps and screws removed.

There is next to no corruption in N.Z. and this I am sure has a lot to do with the universal insurance schemes being viable. Currently and- ex member of parliament, (Thrown out of office pending investigation.) has been convicted of corruption. This being in the form of, do a bit on the side for me and I will make sure you get permanent residence. The ex minister now will have permanent residence in a jail.

Trevor,

What is the tax rate for the national health insurance? Seems that's the most important number.

Dave

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Subie59

Another example of how ridiculous the US health care system is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_301947.html

JUST ONE MORE TIME!!! Check out the survival rates for most serious illnesses and/or conditions and you will find that the USA comes out on top. Don't you think the best measure of system effectiveness is survivors???????? I
think so!!!

Lee

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by dromano

Trevor,

What is the tax rate for the national health insurance? Seems that's the most important number.

Dave

Check posts above for costs in Ireland. Suspect it is very similar for all countries. Its 26 percent, yes, 26 percent of gross (yes, GROSS) income. Half paid by employee and half paid by employer, but of course this really means a total cost of 26 percent to the common man as companies pass expenses to consumers.

Lee

[Subie59]

Here's a link all my American friends will enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXXBCFnhsUc