PDA

View Full Version : Question for Europeans and others..



cptrohn
August 15th, 2009, 04:15 PM
Are you happy with your healthcare system?


I DO NOT want to get into a large political debate.. (I hate them) But was just curious?

Bachstelze
August 15th, 2009, 04:16 PM
Yes. It's the best in the world, after all. ;)

cascade9
August 15th, 2009, 04:17 PM
Australia here, and pretty much. Its got a bit lamer in general over the last few years, but it could be a lot worse....

Rackstar
August 15th, 2009, 04:23 PM
Here in Belgium it's very good. But we pay like 60% taxes on our income.

longtom
August 15th, 2009, 04:26 PM
South Africa - going downhill fast since the first heart transplant.

People don't go to doctors because they can not afford it. And I am not talking very poor people, I am talking about people like me. Medical aid is very expensive and without you are in trouble. Public hospitals, who are supposed to jump in, are not as bad as Somalia but heading in that direction fast. Corruption is high and the will and dedication to fight it low.

Mix that with the highest Aids infection rate in the world and you have an interesting mixture.

It does not look good at the moment - but there is still hope I guess...

kayvortex
August 15th, 2009, 04:32 PM
There have been some blatant lies made about the NHS: I really can't believe how Senators can lie to your face like that: every other politician in the world does it behind your back like they're supposed to.

There's no way in hell we could afford insurance, and the NHS have provided us with a basic level of healthcare that I'm, at least, grateful for. Besides, it's not as if you can't get private insurance if you can afford it.

infestor
August 15th, 2009, 04:45 PM
danish healthcare system is awesome

sydbat
August 15th, 2009, 04:47 PM
It does work. Even though there are some who have been trying to destroy it for years, both intentionally and through sheer stupidity. But it does work overall.

Chame_Wizard
August 15th, 2009, 04:52 PM
You pay less than in the USA per person .:lolflag:

koenn
August 15th, 2009, 05:09 PM
Here in Belgium it's very good.
I fully agree


But we pay like 60% taxes on our income.
Seeing that the taxation is Belgium is a progressive tax with increasing percentage rates from 25% to 50 % (meaning that the higher percentage only applies to the part of your income thats higher than a certain amount), I fail to see how you'd ever reach the point where you pay 60% taxes

And if you do have to pay 60%, you can actually afford too. :-)

Rackstar
August 15th, 2009, 05:24 PM
I fully agree


Seeing that the taxation is Belgium is a progressive tax with increasing percentage rates from 25% to 50 % (meaning that the higher percentage only applies to the part of your income thats higher than a certain amount), I fail to see how you'd ever reach the point where you pay 60% taxes

And if you do have to pay 60%, you can actually afford too. :-)

I asked my dad (I'm still studying) and it appears he always was exaggerating :p He pays around 37% taxes.

My bad.

SuperSonic4
August 15th, 2009, 05:29 PM
It is not perfect [in England] but I am glad I have it - I do not doubt for a second that any treatment I may need will far outweigh the NICs I pay

cariboo
August 15th, 2009, 05:44 PM
It's not perfect here in Canada either, but my Dad was diagnosed with cancer last October, He went into the hospital in December to have part of his lung removed. To us, that was pretty quick service.

jrothwell97
August 15th, 2009, 05:48 PM
I live in the UK. I've never had a problem with our health service... and I've never had to pay a penny (apart from NICs).

British people don't realise how lucky they are to have national health.

bodyharvester
August 15th, 2009, 05:50 PM
the NHS is useful, it serves its purpose, i have no job and am not likely to get one soon so im grateful for free healthcare if i need it.

politicians say crap about the health system to wage a personal/political war, its never as bad as they say, im not denying people have died in hospitals due to incompitence or neglect, there are recorded cases. our hospitals are understaffed in some areas, those are where these avoidable deaths happen and politicians shouldnt use these cases for their gains.

we should be damn grateful we get what we do get, i have asthma, had it all my life because everyone in my family smokes, i dont, i have broken both of my wrists twice (each) and because of so many breaks had a scan of my whole skeleton and was diagnosed with juvenile osteoporosis at 16/17 because i had a deficiency of Vitamin D which is what transfers the calcium into the bones

i could not possibly pay for any of that, i come from a crappy background from a family of people who dont work or have gotten as far as bieng a bin-man/trash collector or waitresses.

i set up my own business several months ago but the recession soon put an end to that not so long ago, without the NHS my quality of life would not be as good as it is now

SuperSonic4
August 15th, 2009, 05:51 PM
the NHS is useful, it serves its purpose, i have no job and am not likely to get one soon so im grateful for free healthcare if i need it.

politicians say crap about the health system to wage a personal/political war, its never as bad as they say, im not denying people have died in hospitals due to incompitence or neglect, there are recorded cases. our hospitals are understaffed in some areas, those are where these avoidable deaths happen and politicians shouldnt use these cases for their gains.



I concur, the NHS needs political independence from the government - not unlike the Bank of England has. The only problem is that politicians will use anything to score points against each other

mrgnash
August 15th, 2009, 05:52 PM
Australia here, and pretty much. Its got a bit lamer in general over the last few years, but it could be a lot worse....

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on it as well, even though the system my state (Victoria) has fallen into serious decline in recent years.

Whiffle
August 15th, 2009, 05:58 PM
If the OP doesn't mind, I'd like to tack on an additional question. This topic is very polarized over here and the whole situation just leaves me sour.

If you have a nationalized health care system, over what period of time was it put together? Was it done as a couple of large laws in a short amount of time, or was it put together over a period of years or decades?

cmay
August 15th, 2009, 06:00 PM
Are you happy with your healthcare system?


I DO NOT want to get into a large political debate.. (I hate them) But was just curious?

i was happy with it up until about the last five years or so. i am very depending on the health car system with my kidney disease . i get disappointed more and more over the status of our health system as it is going now.

cptrohn
August 15th, 2009, 06:01 PM
Thank you all for your honest answers, this is a very big deal here right now. I just wanted input from people that actually have it without all the BS and spin we get from our media here.

cptrohn
August 15th, 2009, 06:02 PM
If the OP doesn't mind, I'd like to tack on an additional question. This topic is very polarized over here and the whole situation just leaves me sour.

If you have a nationalized health care system, over what period of time was it put together? Was it done as a couple of large laws in a short amount of time, or was it put together over a period of years or decades?

I don't mind at all. The more information the better I think.

Whiffle
August 15th, 2009, 06:06 PM
Thank you all for your honest answers, this is a very big deal here right now. I just wanted input from people that actually have it without all the BS and spin we get from our media here.

Yeah its absurd. Its really difficult to even form a decent opinion right now, because one side is saying its the worst thing ever, and the other side seems to be saying its the best. I know better than to believe its either side 100%, but figuring out who's right and who's not seems to be a full time job :(

And thats just one of the issues we face.


*throws hands up in frustration*

Bachstelze
August 15th, 2009, 06:09 PM
If the OP doesn't mind, I'd like to tack on an additional question. This topic is very polarized over here and the whole situation just leaves me sour.

If you have a nationalized health care system, over what period of time was it put together? Was it done as a couple of large laws in a short amount of time, or was it put together over a period of years or decades?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_protection_in_France

The Sécurité Sociale as we know it was introduced on October 4th 1945, but as you can see, the concept is much older.

smbm
August 15th, 2009, 06:10 PM
The NHS is superb.

ugm6hr
August 15th, 2009, 06:13 PM
I wouldn't describe the NHS (in UK) as the envy of the world (as some do), but it is certainly admirable to have healthcare that is truly free at the point of care.

The issues at present:

1. Rationing of healthcare: would you prefer this to be on the basis of need / value or on patient wealth?

2. Poor organisation / inefficiency: experiments in private treatment centres have shown that they are only able to compete on cost with the NHS with very poor standards.

3. Care predominantly delivered by trainees: no solution other than a massive expansion in consultants / specialists.

Having worked in the UK NHS and in public hospitals in Australia (which have a somewhat hybrid system), it is much more satisfying being able to offer treatments on the basis of patient need than on their ability to pay. Here (in the UK), we never offer private care (although it exists), while it was commonplace to offer what was considered higher quality care in Australia in certain circumstances if the patient had insurance or agreed to pay.

Martje_001
August 15th, 2009, 06:14 PM
Here in the Netherlands it's pretty good. We pay as much taxes as in Belgium, maybe even more :P.

But how is it like in the USA? That's what I want to know!

jrothwell97
August 15th, 2009, 06:14 PM
Yeah its absurd. Its really difficult to even form a decent opinion right now, because one side is saying its the worst thing ever, and the other side seems to be saying its the best. I know better than to believe its either side 100%, but figuring out who's right and who's not seems to be a full time job :(

That's because in America, news channels realised a few years ago that they could save a bit of money and boost viewership by replacing actual journalists and newsreaders with 'pundits', people who are paid to spout populist views, shout at their political opponents, lie for their cause, and generally lean more to the right (or left) than a man who's just had his right (or left) leg shot off.

It is a truly bizarre phenomenon.

Marlonsm
August 15th, 2009, 06:19 PM
In Brazil we do have a public healthcare system. But it's far from good, so many people pay for a private healthcare, but they are not cheap, so most people is limited to the public one.
The same thing happens to education (before college), there are public schools, but private ones are much better.

cptrohn
August 15th, 2009, 06:22 PM
Here in the Netherlands it's pretty good. We pay as much taxes as in Belgium, maybe even more :P.

But how is it like in the USA? That's what I want to know!

I have health insurance provided by my employer, so it is pretty decent really. I have a deductable that I have to pay for (about $300 a year) and then my insurance pays for 80% of whatever treatment I get... the problem is the insurance is getting much too expensive for employers to be able to pay and make decent profits at the same time, so they are providing less and less in terms of benefits as the price continues to rise... for instance next year my deductable is going to rise to $500 a year and coverage is going to drop to 75%..

It's a very delicate situation here, and was said before very,very polarizing and bordering on insanity.

Whiffle
August 15th, 2009, 06:25 PM
Here in the Netherlands it's pretty good. We pay as much taxes as in Belgium, maybe even more :P.

But how is it like in the USA? That's what I want to know!


I've never had any issues with it here in the USA. I'd go more into detail about what I think of the current propositions, but this isn't the thread for it.



That's because in America, news channels realised a few years ago that they could save a bit of money and boost viewership by replacing actual journalists and newsreaders with 'pundits', people who are paid to spout populist views, shout at their political opponents, lie for their cause, and generally lean more to the right (or left) than a man who's just had his right (or left) leg shot off.

It is a truly bizarre phenomenon.

Is it a bad thing that lots of people get their news from the "news" shows on Comedy Central?

jrothwell97
August 15th, 2009, 06:27 PM
Is it a bad thing that lots of people get their news from the "news" shows on Comedy Central?

Well, let's be honest, they provide more news than the 'real' news channels.

If you get cable TV, try watching BBC World or Al Jazeera once in a while. The contrast between them and American news channels is... frightening.

Whiffle
August 15th, 2009, 06:30 PM
Well, let's be honest, they provide more news than the 'real' news channels.

If you get cable TV, try watching BBC World or Al Jazeera once in a while. The contrast between them and American news channels is... frightening.

I'm much too cheap to pay for cable. Heck, the only time I turn on my TV is to watch movies, Zorro reruns on DVD, and Star Trek on DVD.

I'll see if I can check those out online though. On my side of the political spectrum (the "right", I guess), Al Jazeera is seen as pretty shady.

Bachstelze
August 15th, 2009, 06:33 PM
On my side of the political spectrum (the "right", I guess), Al Jazeera is seen as pretty shady.

You don't have to agree with them. I read lots of newspapers I don't necessarily agree with, just to get another opinion. The truth is always in-between anyway.

speedwell68
August 15th, 2009, 06:34 PM
I am very happy with the UK NHS. It is free a the point of service and I don't pay an huge amount in direct taxation. If it was not for the NHS I would be a cripple in a wheel chair right now.

kayvortex
August 15th, 2009, 06:43 PM
Thank you all for your honest answers, this is a very big deal here right now. I just wanted input from people that actually have it without all the BS and spin we get from our media here.

The NHS is socialist, as I've heard some Town Hall meetings call it; but I think that basic healthcare should be available to everyone, not just those who can afford it. It's not perfect, but there are a lot of people in the UK, myself included, that are grateful for it. It doesn't necessarily make healthcare in the UK the best in the world, but it does make it available for everyone (I think that I read on The Guardian's website that the UK's healthcare system in 18th in the world, and the US's is 37th). You only need to ask yourself whether you are willing to pay a tax contribution to enable everyone to receive basic healthcare. Then, once the details begin to be decided upon, whether you think it's worth it -- but nobody's even at that stage yet.

MikeTheC
August 15th, 2009, 06:45 PM
Of course, seeing how insanely high European income tax is, it's no wonder you couldn't afford to pay for health insurance on top of it.

smbm
August 15th, 2009, 06:46 PM
You don't have to agree with them. I read lots of newspapers I don't necessarily agree with, just to get another opinion. The truth is always in-between anyway.

Ditto.

sydbat
August 15th, 2009, 06:50 PM
And, as I understand it, even in the US there are hospitals that are supported by the city/county/state...at least to a degree...so it is not a situation where it goes from one thing to the other without any transition.

Also, to answer the question a couple of pages back about how long it took to set up Universal Healthcare...in Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada) the debate was heated for many years before the federal government finally had the political will to change the status quo. Very similar misinformation from both sides as there is in the US currently.

So, is Universal Healthcare worth it? IMHO, yes.

Is it perfect? Nope. But nothing really is (except GNU/Linux =D>) so expecting perfection will only disappoint. However, it is better than the current system in the US.

Bachstelze
August 15th, 2009, 06:52 PM
Is it perfect? Nope. But nothing really is (except GNU/Linux =D>)

Of course. (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1239826)

(This message was brought to you by BSD Fanboys, Inc.)

kayvortex
August 15th, 2009, 06:55 PM
Of course, seeing how insanely high European income tax is, it's no wonder you couldn't afford to pay for health insurance on top of it.

Even if I had no tax to pay at all, I'm not sure I'd be happy with a system where healthcare is wholly dependent on how much you earn; just as I would not be happy if basic education were not also available to everyone regardless of their wealth.

sydbat
August 15th, 2009, 06:56 PM
Of course. (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1239826)

(This message was brought to you by BSD Fanboys, Inc.):lolflag:

cptrohn
August 15th, 2009, 07:08 PM
The NHS is socialist, as I've heard some Town Hall meetings call it; but I think that basic healthcare should be available to everyone, not just those who can afford it. It's not perfect, but there are a lot of people in the UK, myself included, that are grateful for it. It doesn't necessarily make healthcare in the UK the best in the world, but it does make it available for everyone (I think that I read on The Guardian's website that the UK's healthcare system in 18th in the world, and the US's is 37th). You only need to ask yourself whether you are willing to pay a tax contribution to enable everyone to receive basic healthcare. Then, once the details begin to be decided upon, whether you think it's worth it -- but nobody's even at that stage yet.

ugh.. the Town Hall meetings... Pay no attention to those things and don't judge us all by those... They have paid protestors showing up at those things to just be disruptive and nothing else.. (both sides are doing it as well)... it's also pretty much impossible to talk about it on a US web forum as well because of all the slammers that are paid to show up and spout nonsense to keep people from being able to talk reasonably.

But I figured I would ask here since their are folks from all over the world that use ubuntu and I thought I could get a better gauge of the truth, which is as I thought.. it is right smack dab in the middle.. Like everything it has it's good and bad points.

gn2
August 15th, 2009, 07:08 PM
~ how insanely high European income tax is, ~

It varies between countries, I pay less than 20% of my total earnings as income tax.
It's on a pay as you earn basis so you never miss it.
Same goes for National Insurance.
I would hate to be without the NHS, insurance for equivalent private healthcare would be prohibitively expensive.

fballem
August 15th, 2009, 07:09 PM
Some observations:


The Canadian system is pretty good in that it does provide a sound, basic level of healthcare for everyone.
Through our employers, or insurance companies, we can get additional benefits. This includes such things as semi-private rooms, optical coverage, dental coverage, and prescription drug coverage. These are optional and privately funded.
We pay higher taxes than most Americans - but those taxes include the cost of the basic healthcare system - which covers everyone.
In order to get 'apples-to-apples' comparison of costs, the US would need to provide a basic level of healthcare to everyone and include the costs in their taxes. The closest that we can get to-day is to add the premimums for private health insurance to the taxes, and that would provide a low-end baseline - since not everyone would be covered.
NBC News ran the following report: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#32409965. The scary part is that this is in the richest country in the world. We don't have these things in Canada - we don't need them!


Hope this helps,

sydbat
August 15th, 2009, 07:20 PM
Some observations:


The Canadian system is pretty good in that it does provide a sound, basic level of healthcare for everyone.
Through our employers, or insurance companies, we can get additional benefits. This includes such things as semi-private rooms, optical coverage, dental coverage, and prescription drug coverage. These are optional and privately funded.
We pay higher taxes than most Americans - but those taxes include the cost of the basic healthcare system - which covers everyone.
In order to get 'apples-to-apples' comparison of costs, the US would need to provide a basic level of healthcare to everyone and include the costs in their taxes. The closest that we can get to-day is to add the premimums for private health insurance to the taxes, and that would provide a low-end baseline - since not everyone would be covered.
NBC News ran the following report: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#32409965. The scary part is that this is in the richest country in the world. We don't have these things in Canada - we don't need them!


Hope this helps,Very well said. +1

And the NBC report - very scary!

kayvortex
August 15th, 2009, 07:32 PM
ugh.. the Town Hall meetings... Pay no attention to those things and don't judge us all by those...

Five seconds is enough for anyone to conclude that they're an extreme, nut-job, section of society; but they are, regardless, getting a lot of exposure on some "news" channels: can you tell me that all that fear-mongering hasn't affected your opinions at some level?

I've been to places without national healthcare, and it's a truly frightening thing to see people unable to afford to even see a doctor. Then I wonder if I'll ever see ITER run successfully in my lifetime, or how the Mars program is going. If we can tunnel 1MK protons, nobody should have to tell someone they don't have enough money for some amoxycillin.

Paqman
August 15th, 2009, 07:45 PM
Of course, seeing how insanely high European income tax is, it's no wonder you couldn't afford to pay for health insurance on top of it.

Insanely high? Let's take a look at the numbers:

In the US (average wage in 2007 $40,405) you pay 10% of the first $8350, then 15% up to $33950, then 25% on the rest. That adds up to $6288.75, or 15.5%. These numbers are from Wikipedia, so may not take full account of your Byzantine tax system, but they should be in the ballpark.

In the UK, someone on the average wage (about £24,000) pays nothing on the first £6475, then 20% on the rest. Total = £3505, add in about £2011 of national insurance and you get £5516, or about 22.9%.

"Insanely" high? Not in my book. From figures i've heard quoted most Americans seem to pay more than 7.4% of their income for health insurance, so i'd say the Brits get a much better deal. Especially when you consider that the only people who decide the standard of the care we receive are doctors, not health insurance bureaucrats.

sydbat
August 15th, 2009, 07:49 PM
Insanely high? Let's take a look at the numbers:

In the US (average wage in 2007 $40,405) you pay 10% of the first $8350, then 15% up to $33950, then 25% on the rest. That adds up to $6288.75, or 15.5%. These numbers are from Wikipedia, so may not take full account of your Byzantine tax system, but they should be in the ballpark.

In the UK, someone on the average wage (about £24,000) pays nothing on the first £6475, then 20% on the rest. Total = £3505, add in about £2011 of national insurance and you get £5516, or about 22.9%.

"Insanely" high? Not in my book. From figures i've heard quoted most Americans seem to pay more than 7.4% of their income for health insurance, so i'd say the Brits get a much better deal. Especially when you consider that the only people who decide the standard of the care we receive are doctors, not health insurance bureaucrats.That got me thinking...here in Canada many feel we pay too much in tax as well, yet we can deduct the first $10,100 with a sliding scale after.

Dr. C
August 15th, 2009, 07:52 PM
I am pleased with the health care system here in Canada. When a family member or myself needed health care the system has been there for us and there was no need to file for bankruptcy afterwards.

Here is some info on the Canadian health care system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared

and some statistics from the OECD, including a statistic that I found shocking. Do you know that US public expenditure per capita on health care is actually higher than public expenditure per capita on health care in Canada the UK, France and most OECD countries?

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/33/38979719.pdf

deadbeatdrum
August 15th, 2009, 07:52 PM
The NHS seems to find more critics abroad than here in the UK (and that is saying something). I for one could not afford decent healthcare if I lived in America.

Daniel Hannan is a Conservative MEP, even his own Political Party leader (David Cameron) describes Mr Hannan's point of view as eccentric and not Party policy.

And after all is said and done, was this not a debate about Barack Obama's healthcare bill, not that available in the rest of the world?

zekopeko
August 15th, 2009, 07:57 PM
Insanely high? Let's take a look at the numbers:

In the US (average wage in 2007 $40,405) you pay 10% of the first $8350, then 15% up to $33950, then 25% on the rest. That adds up to $6288.75, or 15.5%. These numbers are from Wikipedia, so may not take full account of your Byzantine tax system, but they should be in the ballpark.

In the UK, someone on the average wage (about £24,000) pays nothing on the first £6475, then 20% on the rest. Total = £3505, add in about £2011 of national insurance and you get £5516, or about 22.9%.

Those US numbers are only for federal income taxes. You still have state taxes to pay. Comparing US to Canada I heard that the number is closer to 37% for the Americans and 40% for Canadians. I would say that Canada has it better.

sydbat
August 15th, 2009, 08:00 PM
And after all is said and done, was this not a debate about Barack Obama's healthcare bill, not that available in the rest of the world?Nope. This is the OP...
Are you happy with your healthcare system?


I DO NOT want to get into a large political debate.. (I hate them) But was just curious?

BuffaloX
August 15th, 2009, 08:03 PM
Everybody I know support Universal Health care, we just wish it was better AND cheaper.
Dental plan is not included. I wish it was, dentists in Denmark are very expensive, almost twice the cost of Sweden and Germany.

From what I've heard the Belgian and German health care systems should be the best in Europe.

Any country introducing universal health care should be aware it's an ongoing political battlefield, arguing about quality price and structure.

PS:
Germany has had Universal Health care since 1883!
The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.

zekopeko
August 15th, 2009, 08:03 PM
But speaking about the US "healthcare" I just don't understand it. You have to worry about things such as deductibles, coverage, and a million other things when you get sick/hurt. Most of us Europeans don't have that problem. We only need to focus on getting well.

koenn
August 15th, 2009, 08:08 PM
Of course, seeing how insanely high European income tax is, it's no wonder you couldn't afford to pay for health insurance on top of it.

others have shown already how relative that is.

plus, we don't need to be able to afford health insurance, remember? We already have that covered - with a plan that covers everyone, not only those from the higher income groups.
Sounds like a pretty decent way of handling things, to me.

deadbeatdrum
August 15th, 2009, 08:20 PM
Nope. This is the OP...

Sorry, your quite right syd. I read the first sentence of the OP, but neglected to read the rest.

Here in the UK Daniel Hannan's comments have caused much debate and acrimony, much more so because they he would never have said these things on his native soil.

Since the OP says he is from Indiana, I assumed his question was asked in the light of watching the televised debate about Barack Obama's healthcare policy. Daniel Hannan was probably one of many interviewed for making of this programme.

What is it that they say about assumptions?

mcduck
August 15th, 2009, 08:30 PM
I can't really complain about health care in Finland, pretty much everything is covered, at least at some level. Including all normal health care and dental service + medicine. In some cases queues can be long but that's mostly OK since you also get a decent refund when using private doctors.

For example last time I had to see dentist I went to a private one, they deducted 50% from the price immediately and medication was practically free (dentist bill was 80€, I paid 40€ plus 2,50€ for a large pack of ibuprofein + some antibiotics and diazepam). For comparison, the same treatment on a public dentist would have cost about 20€ + medicines).

Based on my tax papers, health care payment is 1,28% of income. I definitely feel that I'm getting good value for that money. :)

markp1989
August 15th, 2009, 08:32 PM
Im from the UK, and i have only had limited experience with the NHS , but the times i have, they were very good.

a friend of mine burnt him self, and the ambulance was here with in 3 minutes

and i have broken arms a few times, and have gone straight through with no problems.

so yes i am happy with it.

It has a problems with the NHS directors etc giving them self raises, and taking money from the system, but from my experience it is good.

Kimm
August 15th, 2009, 08:35 PM
Swedish health care is awesome.

koenn
August 15th, 2009, 08:39 PM
From what I've heard the Belgian and German health care systems should be the best in Europe.
Don't know about Germany, I'd think Sweden would do quite well in this department as well.

In Belgium, the health care system is part of the social security - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_security - (as in France,I imagine)

The way it's organized is that healthcare is NOT state-organized : we have private clinics, university hospitals, general practitioners, dentists, ... who run a private practice, etc. where you just go when you need to.

Then, depending on the case, you pay the bill and get a (partial, but large) refund, or the hospital bills the social security directly, and bills you for the (relatively small) amount that you have to cover yourself. Pretty much the way a health insurance would work, I imagine.

Of course it's a lot more complex then that (Belgians really know how to make things complicated) : behind it is a system of rules and regulations about what sort of medical expense is not covered by this system (eg plastic surgery for purely aesthetical rather than mediacl/reconstructive reasons ), rates on how much will be coverd by the social security, maximum rates hospitals can charge for this or that type of care, some control mechanisms to avoid abuse, ...

but the net results is good to very good yet affordable health care for everyone. I'm all for it.

markp1989
August 15th, 2009, 08:41 PM
Of course, seeing how insanely high European income tax is, it's no wonder you couldn't afford to pay for health insurance on top of it.

When i was working i was only paying 20% income tax, which worked out at about 10 pound a working day (im young, so i get low wadges)

but that money does pay for lots of things, so in the end it is worth it .

If i lived in the us, my parent could not afford to pay for decent health care.

mcduck
August 15th, 2009, 08:50 PM
Of course, seeing how insanely high European income tax is, it's no wonder you couldn't afford to pay for health insurance on top of it.

Considering that the taxes really aren't that much (if really any) higher, and that not only include public health care but also social security and at least here in Finland free education as well I'd say we get pretty good value for the money.. ;)

nubimax
August 15th, 2009, 10:48 PM
the main reason that I retired to Mexico is that in the U.S. 80% of my retirement income would have to go for Medical insurance. Here in Mexico the very poor get medical care free for the most part, any one else pays up front. My last eye operation here cost me about $2,000 U.S dollars the same operation in the U.S. will cost $20,000 U.S. dollars. My son flys down from Oregon every winter spends a month with us then buys 6 months supply of one of his medications and saves enough money to pay for the round trip flight. This says many things about the health care in the U.S. and by the way the operation that I had on my eyes was a new type that had just became available the month before in the U.S.
M

bailout
August 15th, 2009, 11:25 PM
My experience of the nhs is mixed tbh but I firmly believe that the basic system is sound and just wish that it could be reformed somewhat.

With something as complex as healthcare for a nation no system will be perfect all the time and every alternative will have pros and cons.

BuffaloX
August 16th, 2009, 12:01 AM
Then, depending on the case, you pay the bill and get a (partial, but large) refund.


Our coverage is 100% no money to pay for any treatment, hospital, doctor or ambulance, or late night house calls.

I don't think purely cosmetic surgery is covered in any country, it has to be some sort of medical condition in order to be covered.

Medicine here is covered 50-85%, but only for prescribed medicine.
If you are poor, you may get the rest covered too, but you have to apply for it.

My comment about Belgian and German being the best, I believe it was measured on a number of parameters.
Total cost, waiting period and quality.

The French must be doing something right also, they have the highest life expectancy in Europe.

Denmark has the very shameful honor of being one of only three western European countries that has lower life expectancy than the USA.

Out of the 17 western European countries I checked, 14 were higher (better) than USA and 3 were lower. (Denmark Ireland and Portugal)
Quite impressive for Europe, especially considering the diversity.

koenn
August 16th, 2009, 12:15 AM
Our coverage is 100% no money to pay for any treatment, hospital, doctor or ambulance, or late night house calls.

...

The French must be doing something right also, they have the highest life expectancy in Europe.

Denmark has the very shameful honor of being one of only three western European countries that has lower life expectancy than the USA.

But then, there's more to life expectancy than national health care : life style (eg re food, drink, sports, ...) affects life expectancy, as (probably) does climate (hours of sunlight), standard of living (poverty kills), ... A care free 'laissez faire' mentality probably also helps, while a stress inducing work ethic most likely doesn't.

perce
August 16th, 2009, 12:21 AM
Quality of public health care in Italy is very diverse: at some places it is first rate, at other is third world. The main issue is that managers are often chosen more based on political loyalty than on merit, however this is quite common in Italy, and not a specific issue of health care at all. In any case we still have longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality rates than the US (CIA factbook).

lisati
August 16th, 2009, 12:23 AM
Australia here, and pretty much. Its got a bit lamer in general over the last few years, but it could be a lot worse....

Across the ditch here in NZ: ours could be worse, and if it wasn't for a local ambulance service that's supported largely by donations and grants, and a "free" hospital system, I probably wouldn't be here today (heart attack two years ago, almost to the day.....)

C!oud
August 16th, 2009, 12:33 AM
Swedish health care is awesome.

Compared to how it is here in Florida right now I can't argue with that ;)

calrogman
August 16th, 2009, 12:38 AM
Apart from the NHS being underfunded for years, leaving it with a poor infrastructure, yes I am.

aktiwers
August 16th, 2009, 01:37 AM
Denmark is great too. Free health care and free education, actually the state pays any student who is older than 18 around $1000 a month in support for thier studies.

gordonh
August 16th, 2009, 01:45 AM
I have health insurance provided by my employer, so it is pretty decent really. I have a deductable that I have to pay for (about $300 a year) and then my insurance pays for 80% of whatever treatment I get... the problem is the insurance is getting much too expensive for employers to be able to pay and make decent profits at the same time, so they are providing less and less in terms of benefits as the price continues to rise... for instance next year my deductable is going to rise to $500 a year and coverage is going to drop to 75%..

It's a very delicate situation here, and was said before very,very polarizing and bordering on insanity.

I don't really know what anyone earns or what individual costs of treatments are, but it seems likely to me that most people couldn't pay 20% of any serious medical intervention. Does that mean that the intervention therefore don't happen and so the insurance company ends up paying 80% of zero?

cptrohn
August 16th, 2009, 03:43 AM
I don't really know what anyone earns or what individual costs of treatments are, but it seems likely to me that most people couldn't pay 20% of any serious medical intervention. Does that mean that the intervention therefore don't happen and so the insurance company ends up paying 80% of zero?

No, you can work out payment plans with doctors and hospitals to cover the rest.

Dr. C
August 16th, 2009, 04:24 AM
No, you can work out payment plans with doctors and hospitals to cover the rest.

And if the patient after being cured cannot pay, the patient then declares bankruptcy?

mamamia88
August 16th, 2009, 04:34 AM
i say leave the healthcare system like it is. i never get sick and when i do i usually suck it up and don't go to a doctor unless i think i'm going to die

Paqman
August 16th, 2009, 04:42 AM
i say leave the healthcare system like it is. i never get sick and when i do i usually suck it up and don't go to a doctor unless i think i'm going to die

I'm not sure the "just suck it up" approach is going to work too well on a broken leg. Or cancer.

I'm also assuming you plan to never get any older. Good luck with that!

mamamia88
August 16th, 2009, 04:44 AM
I'm not sure the "just suck it up" approach is going to work too well on a broken leg. Or cancer.

I'm also assuming you plan to never get any older. Good luck with that!

lol i guess i will hope my employer pays for it or just hope for the best. no doctor will refuse to treat you after all

ZankerH
August 16th, 2009, 04:45 AM
I'm European and I'm revolted by the rampant socialism. Healthcare is a business and should be handled as such, and people with more money should be able to get better treatment, instead of having to waste their money on taxes to pay for people who did nothing to earn it. In Europe, most private doctors become wealthy by nature of having shorter waiting times because less people use them, because the socialist universal healthcare allows them to get away with providing the exact same services as the state-run hospitals. We live in a free, democratic, meritocratic capitalist society, and the way I see it, socialism is just the last strand of our barbaric past that has to fall off for us to move forwards as a species.

If profit is used as a motivator in every other part of life, why not healthcare? What's so sacred about it that we have to disregard the very basics of our society and what makes us human - striving for success - and revert to primal socialism? Maybe there's something wrong with our culture, I can understand some people aren't comfortable with leaving sick people untreated just because they can't pay for their treatment, but that's how progress is achieved, by leaving behind those who don't contribute to achieving it. Abolishing state-run medicine would just create a new tier of low-cost medicine practitioners for the lower class - creating many new jobs, and the free market would balance things out eventually.

But instead, our healthcare is turning to communism (europe) and eugenics (america). Crying shame.

hansdown
August 16th, 2009, 05:17 AM
Thank you all for your honest answers, this is a very big deal here right now. I just wanted input from people that actually have it without all the BS and spin we get from our media here.

Yes, the media does put " the spin" on it.

For instance, here in Canada,which is touted as socialist by "some interest

groups",Pharmacutical Corps., for instance. we have health care that is provided by tax dollars to support those in need, without paying a private "contractor", which is in effect, the benaficiaries of our tax dollars.

As far as ZankerH's statement, I can only wonder if one of your relatives needed treatment, if you would say the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko

I apologise, as this may be construed as a political statement.

ZankerH
August 16th, 2009, 06:09 AM
As far as ZankerH's statement, I can only wonder if one of your relatives needed treatment, if you would say the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko

I apologise, as this may be construed as a political statement.

Wow, appeal to emotions AND a michael moore reference in a single post. Can you possibly cram any more flawed rhetoric into a single-sentence address?

You see, this is the problem of socialism - the state assumes to be protecting the individuals emotions - by, as you pointed out an example, treating sick people for free. Emotions are each individuals' matter, and each individual should deal with them on his own. Me being sad about my relatives' sickness doesn't mean they should get preferential treatment, and just I certainly won't start supporting socialist healthcare because of that either. A truly free healthcare market would address all of the issues you've raised.

hobo14
August 16th, 2009, 06:15 AM
I'm European and I'm revolted by the rampant socialism. Healthcare is a business and should be handled as such, and people with more money should be able to get better treatment, instead of having to waste their money on taxes to pay for people who did nothing to earn it. In Europe, most private doctors become wealthy by nature of having shorter waiting times because less people use them, because the socialist universal healthcare allows them to get away with providing the exact same services as the state-run hospitals. We live in a free, democratic, meritocratic capitalist society, and the way I see it, socialism is just the last strand of our barbaric past that has to fall off for us to move forwards as a species.

If profit is used as a motivator in every other part of life, why not healthcare? What's so sacred about it that we have to disregard the very basics of our society and what makes us human - striving for success - and revert to primal socialism? Maybe there's something wrong with our culture, I can understand some people aren't comfortable with leaving sick people untreated just because they can't pay for their treatment, but that's how progress is achieved, by leaving behind those who don't contribute to achieving it. Abolishing state-run medicine would just create a new tier of low-cost medicine practitioners for the lower class - creating many new jobs, and the free market would balance things out eventually.

But instead, our healthcare is turning to communism (europe) and eugenics (america). Crying shame.

Er, serious or sarcastic?



I can understand some people aren't comfortable with leaving sick people untreated just because they can't pay for their treatment, but that's how progress is achieved,...

I'm hoping sarcastic....

cptrohn
August 16th, 2009, 06:21 AM
lol i guess i will hope my employer pays for it or just hope for the best. no doctor will refuse to treat you after all

"no doctor will refuse to treat you after all"

Don't count on that... Many will refuse to treat you if you can't pay them... Then your only option would be an emergency room visit where they can't deny you service, but can take you to court and sue you for everything you have.

ZankerH
August 16th, 2009, 06:39 AM
"no doctor will refuse to treat you after all"

Don't count on that... Many will refuse to treat you if you can't pay them... Then your only option would be an emergency room visit where they can't deny you service, but can take you to court and sue you for everything you have.


Why do so many people have a problem with the concept of paying for products and services provided to them? Why do so many people believe healthcare should be exempt from this simple rule? That's how our society works. And I've yet to hear a single argument against that that isn't laden with emotion, sensationalism or accusations of being sarcastic (which I'm not).

Our society just has to move beyond caring about the lowest common denominator. Providing for those who can't provide for themselves isn't noble or respectful in any way, it's stupid and it sets back the people who do the providing part - which means that in a socialist system, everyone but the undeserving underachievers is being unfairly set back.

If people feel like paying for other people's healthcare, that's fine by me, but that's what charities are for, and charities are voluntary. If you like to feel helpful, help people with your own money, don't help the state steal from people who don't want to help, to give to people who did nothing to deserve help.

Grishka
August 16th, 2009, 07:17 AM
Why do so many people have a problem with the concept of paying for products and services provided to them? Why do so many people believe healthcare should be exempt from this simple rule? That's how our society works. And I've yet to hear a single argument against that that isn't laden with emotion, sensationalism or accusations of being sarcastic (which I'm not).

Our society just has to move beyond caring about the lowest common denominator. Providing for those who can't provide for themselves isn't noble or respectful in any way, it's stupid and it sets back the people who do the providing part - which means that in a socialist system, everyone but the undeserving underachievers is being unfairly set back.

If people feel like paying for other people's healthcare, that's fine by me, but that's what charities are for, and charities are voluntary. If you like to feel helpful, help people with your own money, don't help the state steal from people who don't want to help, to give to people who did nothing to deserve help.

you'll sing a different tune when your luck runs dry.

longtom
August 16th, 2009, 07:35 AM
So, ZankerH, you believe anybody who can not afford health care should just die.

Well - you are right in line with a lot of prominent people I guess, like Bill Clinton and the owner of CNN (who's name escapes me at present).
Too many people on the planet - so just let them die... Explains a lot of foreign policies of the US in the past, especially in Africa (and possibly the present?).

Maybe you should leave your comfort zone in front of your PC and visit us in Africa and watch them die, while lying in front of hospitals they cannot afford. Maybe you like the picture...

So - which charity are you part of? And how many of your peers do join you in that?...

But I guess you are trolling - nobody in his right mind can possibly think like that....

lisati
August 16th, 2009, 07:48 AM
lol i guess i will hope my employer pays for it or just hope for the best. no doctor will refuse to treat you after all

Ever seen the movie "John Q (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0251160/)"? One of the central issues it deals with is the doctors not being allowed to treat someone.

ZankerH
August 16th, 2009, 08:00 AM
you'll sing a different tune when your luck runs dry.

Again, this is an appeal to emotions rather than a real argument.


So, ZankerH, you believe anybody who can not afford health care should just die.

Everyone dies sometime. And not saving people's lives isn't the same as killing people, so stop subtly implying the connection, thank you very much.



Too many people on the planet - so just let them die... Explains a lot of foreign policies of the US in the past, especially in Africa (and possibly the present?).

The (perceived by liberal socialists) problem in africa is that we're not doing enough to help them. The way I see it, the problem is the fact that every time we give away free stuff, they demand more, it's gotten to the point where handouts are the norm and the lack of them is considered an outrage. Am I the only one who finds that illogical?


Maybe you should leave your comfort zone in front of your PC and visit us in Africa and watch them die, while lying in front of hospitals they cannot afford. Maybe you like the picture...

As mentioned earlier, you're not supposed to appeal to people's emotions in a rational debate. I've no interest in watching people die, nor do I stand anything to gain by saving people's lives. Why is it so hard to accept that I don't wish to be part of either?


So - which charity are you part of? And how many of your peers do join you in that?...

I thought I made it quite clear that while I don't mind people supporting charities, I don't do that myself, because I believe in individualism.


But I guess you are trolling - nobody in his right mind can possibly think like that....

And I can't see how anyone in his right mind can support people being granted products and services without demanding anything in return.

The only thing socialist healthcare and other socialist schemes accomplish is discouraging people from working or trying to succeed in any way, because they know they'll get free handouts if they fail - only those handouts aren't free, they're paid for by people who did succeed and can't enjoy the spoils of their success because the state considers the failures more important than them.

Barrucadu
August 16th, 2009, 08:30 AM
And I can't see how anyone in his right mind can support people being granted products and services without demanding anything in return.

In that case why do you use FOSS software? Payment isn't demanded. Obviously you can't be in your right mind if you use/support it.

edit: Also, caring for people without demanding anything in return is barbaric? What? Do you not help anyone unless they pay you?

longtom
August 16th, 2009, 08:40 AM
The (perceived by liberal socialists) problem in africa is that we're not doing enough to help them. The way I see it, the problem is the fact that every time we give away free stuff, they demand more, it's gotten to the point where handouts are the norm and the lack of them is considered an outrage. Am I the only one who finds that illogical?

Africa won't need any handouts. If the so called developed world would leave their resources alone and not take them away from them, as they have done since they set foot on there, they would manage quite well on their own. Probably their health care system would beat that of most continents...

But since especially the US cannot leave their fingers of their resources, and lately China is joining them in that, a bit of help would be the least which could be expected. Why this is a view of a liberal socialist I am not quite sure.... for most people this would be the right thing to do.

But since you don't even thing Africa deserves a capital letter I guess you believe anybody living their just deserves no better.

Pretty cynical, really. I guess it is all part of a "Humanist World View"...

Muppeteer
August 16th, 2009, 08:50 AM
I'm not a fan of the NHS. A couple of years ago i had some kidney stones, and i truly found out how awful the service is. It took a full year to get rid of them. That included 6 operations and months spend with a painful stent inside me. I think British people in general do not look after their health, and so the ones of us who do, have to suffer. The amount of binge drinkers, smokers, junkies and just bad diets is truly straining the system. I think they ought to charge people based on their lifestyles or general health.

slakkie
August 16th, 2009, 08:51 AM
In the Netherlands we have "free" health care, we have to pay X euro's (don't know it by heart, around 1200 I believe) per year. If you don't use any of the services (except house doctor visits) you get 250 euro's back. Unlike another statement made by a country(wo)man in this thread, it has nothing to do with taxes, but with the fact that we all have to pay our 'basisverzekering' (basic insurance). Everybody has to pay, if you cannot afford it then you get a discount (you get some extra money to pay your health care), called zorgtoeslag.

Even though the system has been criticized, by me also, it is working fine, and you get a default health care plan which you can get additional benefits if you pay for them. So everyone gets treated as covered by the plan, which you don't have to pay for, although some medicine is not covered by healthcare, but these medicine are not expensive, around 10-15 euro's and that is it.

If I look at the NBC bit posted in this thread I am SOOOO happy that the state has a healthcare plan so that we don't have to have doctors volunteering to help those who need it. Those people would have been covered by the default insurance policy in the Netherlands.

For more information about Health care in my country have a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_Netherlands

ZankerH
August 16th, 2009, 08:58 AM
In that case why do you use FOSS software? Payment isn't demanded. Obviously you can't be in your right mind if you use/support it.

edit: Also, caring for people without demanding anything in return is barbaric? What? Do you not help anyone unless they pay you?

I believe in a free market. In a free market, you can offer your product or service for free (as is the case with the large majority of FOSS), but you can't give it out for free, then make someone else pay for it.

And I didn't say free healthcare is barbaric. My point is that healthcare isn't free - what's barbaric is that people who have money for it are forced to pay for the people who don't.

Where I live, involuntary appropriation of money or property is called a robbery, and involuntary labour is called slavery.

Dr. C
August 16th, 2009, 09:14 AM
I believe in a free market. In a free market, you can offer your product or service for free (as is the case with the large majority of FOSS), but you can't give it out for free, then make someone else pay for it.

And I didn't say free healthcare is barbaric. My point is that healthcare isn't free - what's barbaric is that people who have money for it are forced to pay for the people who don't.

Where I live, involuntary appropriation of money or property is called a robbery, and involuntary labour is called slavery.

That would make the US health care system more barbaric than say that of Canada since Americans pay more per capita through their taxes for government sponsored health care than Canadians.

headflux
August 16th, 2009, 09:14 AM
The thing about the National Heath Service (NHS) in the UK, is that the quality of care is generally very good (our doctors are just as well trained as anywhere else, and have access to modern technology & drugs). The problem is more that you sometimes have to wait quite a while for an appointment (if it's not an emergency).

having said that, we have relatively low taxes compared to mainland European countries, and life expectancy is comparable.

rudenko_ruslan
August 16th, 2009, 09:17 AM
Are you happy with your healthcare system?
Nope. Sometimes I think that we don't have "healthcare system" at all ](*,)

Nevon
August 16th, 2009, 09:22 AM
It's pretty good here in Sweden. It's "free" (as in paid for in taxes) for everyone, most drugs are at the very least subsidized, the medical staff is well trained, and the facilities are clean. However, it seems there are too few doctors and nurses available - so sometimes you may have to wait for a long time to get an appointment.

ugm6hr
August 16th, 2009, 09:42 AM
And I didn't say free healthcare is barbaric. My point is that healthcare isn't free - what's barbaric is that people who have money for it are forced to pay for the people who don't.

I don't want to derail this thread down a political road, but this is what government is for.

Rhetorical questions:

Have you been robbed or mugged etc? Do you pay for an (as yet) unnecessary police force?

Have you been set on fire? Do you pay for an (as yet) unnecessary fire brigade?

The government sponsors many services for the good of the population; what standard of service, and what is included in those services are a decision for the government (and in a democracy, the people who vote for said government).

I can afford healthcare as required, and have not been a significant user of the NHS (as of yet), but am happy to subsidize healthcare as a basic human need for my fellow people. The fact that I get to directly provide this service (and get paid by the government for this) makes feel all warm and fuzzy inside ;)

ZankerH
August 16th, 2009, 09:59 AM
I can afford healthcare as required, and have not been a significant user of the NHS (as of yet), but am happy to subsidize healthcare as a basic human need for my fellow people. The fact that I get to directly provide this service (and get paid by the government for this) makes feel all warm and fuzzy inside ;)

So wasting money on other people makes you feel meaningful. Good for you. Fortunately, our society also respects free will, and making me pay to treat someone I don't care about is not free will.



Rhetorical questions:

Have you been robbed or mugged etc? Do you pay for an (as yet) unnecessary police force?

Have you been set on fire? Do you pay for an (as yet) unnecessary fire brigade?


Rhetorical answer:

It's the government's duty to protect its citizens from crime and external threats. But it's a very slippery slope between the government controlling its citizens health and the government running every aspect of our lives. The police and fire departments protect us from criminals and natural disasters. The military protects us from our State's enemies. A State-run healthcare doesn't do anything meaningful that couldn't be done more efficiently and more profitably by private businesses.

Stop assuming all humans share your compassion and sympathy for poor sick people and present rational arguments in favour of the government taking my money to treat people who shouldn't be able to receive a treatment. I hate it how the moment there's a discussion about helping underprivileged persons, everyone forgets that nobody is born underprivileged - every poor man has nobody but himself to blame, blaming the society is just avoiding the real issue - the fact that we're allowing these people to live as if they weren't guilty of holding back societal progress. They failed to achieve anything significant in their lives, their lives should reflect that.

Barrucadu
August 16th, 2009, 10:08 AM
I hate it how the moment there's a discussion about helping underprivileged persons, everyone forgets that nobody is born underprivileged - every poor man has nobody but himself to blame, blaming the society is just avoiding the real issue - the fact that we're allowing these people to live as if they weren't guilty of holding back societal progress. They failed to achieve anything significant in their lives, their lives should reflect that.

What about people born into exceedingly poor families? That's not their fault, yet they were born underprivileged.

gn2
August 16th, 2009, 10:09 AM
I'm not a fan of the NHS. A couple of years ago i had some kidney stones, and i truly found out how awful the service is. It took a full year to get rid of them. ~

But at least you did get rid.

Would you have been able to afford it if you were paying privately?

If there was no NHS and you couldn't get insurance, you would still have them.

Swagman
August 16th, 2009, 10:09 AM
Nice way of NOT answering the question (you'd make a good politician)

Have you been set on fire (or cut free from a road collision) ?

Have you been mugged ?

ZankerH
August 16th, 2009, 10:11 AM
What about people born into exceedingly poor families? That's not their fault, yet they were born underprivileged.

They're not "born underprivileged" in any way just because their parents are poor. Since healthcare is the topic, public education available for free to everyone is more than sufficient to get a job that pays well enough to pay for your basic healthcare needs, no mater how poor your parents were.

perce
August 16th, 2009, 10:13 AM
If profit is used as a motivator in every other part of life, why not healthcare? What's so sacred about it that we have to disregard the very basics of our society and what makes us human - striving for success - and revert to primal socialism?

Not everybody strive for money. Some do for knowledge, someone else for other things. If everybody were interested only in profit, society wouldn't go any further.

ZankerH
August 16th, 2009, 10:13 AM
Nice way of NOT answering the question (you'd make a good politician)

Have you been set on fire (or cut free from a road collision) ?

Have you been mugged ?

You wrote those were rhetorical questions. Since you don't seem understand the meaning of the term "rhetorical question", I'd suggest you either look it up in a dictionary or stop using words whose meanings you don't understand.


A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a direct reply.

Swagman
August 16th, 2009, 10:15 AM
you really would make a good politician

go for it !!

Muppeteer
August 16th, 2009, 10:16 AM
But at least you did get rid.

Would you have been able to afford it if you were paying privately?

If there was no NHS and you couldn't get insurance, you would still have them.

Well i've learned my lesson, not to rely on them any longer. So any problems in future will be dealt with by private care.

ZankerH
August 16th, 2009, 10:18 AM
you really would make a good politician

go for it !!

If you've no more arguments (oh wait, you never had any to begin with), you should cease posting in this thread. And I should note that in any normal, civil discourse, having one's writing/speaking abilities likened to a politician's is considered a compliment. Even though I fail to see how treating a rhetorical question as a rhetorical question is a quality only a politician would posses.


Not everybody strive for money. Some do for knowledge, someone else for other things. If everybody were interested only in profit, society wouldn't go any further.

What? Is that an argument in favour of...abolishing the monetary system? A thinly veiled "DOWN WITH CAPITALISM!" parole? Just a general observation with no relevance to the topic at hand? Yeah, that must be it.

No matter what you strive for, chances are you'll need money to achieve your goal or some part of it. If you're certain that's not the case, you're absolutely welcome to not use money.

gn2
August 16th, 2009, 10:21 AM
~ people who shouldn't be able to receive a treatment. ~

That's the problem with your argument right there.
You seem unfamiliar with Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a25) as adopted by the United Nations in 1948.

Everyone has a fundamental right to medical care, irrespective of their wealth or lack thereof.

koenn
August 16th, 2009, 10:22 AM
Healthcare is a business and should be handled as such ...
That's just a matter of opinion.
Health care is a basic human right, and therefore it's a society's duty to provide it. There, an other opinion. I prefer the latter, because I value human dignity, human rights, and solidarity.




We live in a free, democratic, meritocratic capitalist society, ...
Meritocratic ? not really. It would be meritocratic if the playing field were level and the starting position is equal for all individuals, so the only differentiating factor would be one's own 'merit' - but that isn't the case.
Actually, things like social security, free education, certain regulatority legislation, ... aims to level the playing field and provide 'equal oportunity'.



If profit is used as a motivator in every other part of life, why not healthcare? ... The free market would balance things out eventually.
History has shown that the free market sometimes has serious trouble evening things out, and the that peoples' living conditions can deteriorate severely while the market attempts to find a new balance.
Things like social security and the likes are tools to mitigate that.
Its what makes us human : our tendency to fix things and have an impact on our living conditions

gn2
August 16th, 2009, 10:23 AM
Well i've learned my lesson, not to rely on them any longer. So any problems in future will be dealt with by private care.

If the private sector didn't parasite off the NHS, the service would be far better.

koenn
August 16th, 2009, 10:28 AM
... - the fact that we're allowing these people to live as if they weren't guilty of holding back societal progress.
I hate to Godwin this thread, but
wasn't there a guy some time in the 1930(s-1940's who thought he'd just go and solve this 'problem' once and for all by just killing all those 'holding back' his ideal society ?

ZankerH
August 16th, 2009, 10:32 AM
I hate to Godwin this thread, but
wasn't there a guy some time in the 1930(s-1940's who thought he'd just go and solve this 'problem' once and for all by just killing all those 'holding back' his ideal society ?

12 pages. Oh well, it's been a nice debate, wasn't it?

I'll just refer you to my previous comment


Not saving lives isn't the same as killing people


Although the last person to make the connection did attempt a bit more subtlety than you did.

perce
August 16th, 2009, 10:37 AM
What? Is that an argument in favour of...abolishing the monetary system? A thinly veiled "DOWN WITH CAPITALISM!" parole? Just a general observation with no relevance to the topic at hand? Yeah, that must be it.

No matter what you strive for, chances are you'll need money to achieve your goal or some part of it. If you're certain that's not the case, you're absolutely welcome to not use money.

OK, you've misunderstood my point so badly, that you must have done it on purpose.

I'll try to be more explicit and see what happens: people like scientist or artist usually don't become rich, unless they are at the very top (and even top scientists earn incomparably less than mediocre top managers) however the progress of society needs also average scientists and artists, so if every bright mind were obsessed in making money, society would be short of some necessary highly qualified skills.

ZankerH
August 16th, 2009, 10:43 AM
OK, you've misunderstood my point so badly, that you must have done it on purpose.

I'll try to be more explicit and see what happens: people like scientist or artist usually don't become rich, unless they are at the very top (and even top scientists earn incomparably less than mediocre top managers) however the progress of society needs also average scientists and artists, so if every bright mind were obsessed in making money, society would be short of some necessary highly qualified skills.

Did I use the word "obsessed"? No, I merely pointed out that whatever your goal in life is, you're guaranteed to need money at some point. Which is true unless you happen to live in total isolation from the human society.

perce
August 16th, 2009, 10:47 AM
Did I use the word "obsessed"? No, I merely pointed out that whatever your goal in life is, you're guaranteed to need money at some point. Which is true unless you happen to live in total isolation from the human society.

Of course I do need money, the point is that I want to think about Math, not about what insurance I can afford with my salary as a researcher.

jrothwell97
August 16th, 2009, 10:53 AM
And still, you haven't answered the question.

If you were mugged, would you pay for the police service? If some uninsured joyriding dolt rammed you from behind in a 4x4 and then set your car on fire, would you be happy if the fire service said "sorry, we're not moving until that cheque's in our hands"?

Please answer the question, and don't derail the thread on the semantics.

ZankerH
August 16th, 2009, 11:07 AM
And still, you haven't answered the question.

If you were mugged, would you pay for the police service? If some uninsured joyriding dolt rammed you from behind in a 4x4 and then set your car on fire, would you be happy if the fire service said "sorry, we're not moving until that cheque's in our hands"?

Please answer the question, and don't derail the thread on the semantics.

A rhetorical question is not asked to demand an answer, but to raise a point, which it did. But just because it's original author apparently misused the word "rhetorical", I'll indulge you.

As I already said (and you really should read my prior posts in this thread before just jumping in), the State is there to protect and govern it's citizens. That's what the fire and police departments, the military and various other government agencies are for, and I believe my car insurance covers the "oh **** my car is on fire get me the hell out of here" part. However, it has been proven over and over again that medicine can be practised much more efficiently and ran with a far higher profit margin if it's ran privately, and not by a government.

koenn
August 16th, 2009, 11:08 AM
I'll just refer you to my previous comment

"Not saving lives isn't the same as killing people"

Although the last person to make the connection did attempt a bit more subtlety than you did.
That post of yours that I was replying to wasn't all that subtle either, so i didn't think subtlety was required. And as you seem to prefer logic and rationality over "appeal to emotion' and what not, I thought I'd just point out the logical next step in your reasoning.

perce
August 16th, 2009, 11:09 AM
However, it has been proven over and over again that medicine can be practised much more efficiently and ran with a far higher profit margin if it's ran privately, and not by a government.

Evidence?

BuffaloX
August 16th, 2009, 11:10 AM
And I didn't say free healthcare is barbaric. My point is that healthcare isn't free - what's barbaric is that people who have money for it are forced to pay for the people who don't.


Hi Zanker
Unfortunately on this forum we are not allowed to discuss politics.
The theme of the thread is: Are you satisfied with your current health care?

Also you don't state which country you are from, so which European health care system is it that you are dissatisfied with exactly?

jrothwell97
August 16th, 2009, 11:11 AM
However, it has been proven over and over again that medicine can be practised much more efficiently and ran with a far higher profit margin if it's ran privately, and not by a government.

Higher profit margin does not equal higher standards of care.

This proof you speak of eludes me, as well: the UK, with a national health service, is rated 18th overall in the quality of its care. The US is thirty-seventh.

cartes
August 16th, 2009, 11:20 AM
Not true: US spends 16% of GDP on its cumbersome and selective healthcare system; UK spends 9% of GDP and provides healthcare for everyone.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/10/health.health

BuffaloX
August 16th, 2009, 11:21 AM
Evidence?

Probably FOX news. :lolflag:

Public funded health care is about half the cost of private funded, but the clinics/hospitals can still be private.

bobbob94
August 16th, 2009, 11:40 AM
I'm in the UK, and although the national health service is far from perfect it seems much preferable to having to rely on the free market and private insurance for my health needs. I've seen the results of such privatisation in other areas here, such as the disaster that is the rail system, and the thought of doing something similar to the NHS is downright scary.

speedwell68
August 16th, 2009, 11:45 AM
I'm in the UK, and although the national health service is far from perfect it seems much preferable to having to rely on the free market and private insurance for my health needs. I've seen the results of such privatisation in other areas here, such as the disaster that is the rail system, and the thought of doing something similar to the NHS is downright scary.

^^^QFT.

A lot of the silly anti arguments put forward in the US press recently sound fairly similar to what Nye Bevan got from the British BMA in 1948. The one that really tickled me was this...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/12/hawking_british_and_alive/

ZankerH
August 16th, 2009, 11:52 AM
Also you don't state which country you are from, so which European health care system is it that you are dissatisfied with exactly?

Does it matter? I'm a citizen of the EU, I commonly reside in four European countries and less commonly in another two, and pretty much every European country has basically the same socialist healthcare system, the only fundamental difference is the amount of your money they take for it - which seems to be inversely correlated to how well developed and widely used private medicine is in that country. Socialist healthcare kills free market medicine, it's that simple.

wipeout140
August 16th, 2009, 11:55 AM
I am proud of the NHS and the system but i accept there are some problems but what system is perfect, i also think free health care is an excellent idea and should be available to all

Mehall
August 16th, 2009, 12:07 PM
Does it matter? I'm a citizen of the EU, I commonly reside in four European countries and less commonly in another two, and pretty much every European country has basically the same socialist healthcare system, the only fundamental difference is the amount of your money they take for it - which seems to be inversely correlated to how well developed and widely used private medicine is in that country. Socialist healthcare kills free market medicine, it's that simple.

Actually, here in the UK, there are various options for privatised health care. You know what 80% of it is? NHS hospitals and doctors, but paid to put you first in line, rather than based on your need.

It's the privatised health care options that are breaking the NHS.


Also, you never responded to the person who asked why you use FOSS software, when it is a socially liberal design methodology. Surely you should be using Apple/MSFT offerings?

jrothwell97
August 16th, 2009, 12:13 PM
And why is free market medicine a good thing?

To me, free market medicine would appear to put making a profit ahead of the welfare of patients.

perce
August 16th, 2009, 12:15 PM
Socialist healthcare kills free market medicine, it's that simple.

If free market medicine can't stand competition against socialised healthcare, it means it is not that good because people always choose what it is best for them; isn't this the basic assumption of liberal (in European sense) ideology?

NCLI
August 16th, 2009, 12:17 PM
i was happy with it up until about the last five years or so. i am very depending on the health car system with my kidney disease . i get disappointed more and more over the status of our health system as it is going now.
+1

The current conservative/liberal/national socialist government in Denmark has been dismantling the healthcare system for the past 10 years, behind our backs and making it sound like they're improving it >.>

Anyway, I'm still very glad we have it, since I'd rather pay our high taxes than die because I'm uninsured!!

BTW: Your Fox News is hillarious, best joke news show I've ever seen, they seem so genuine! I mean, "death panels?" Where do they come up with that stuff, it's hilarious! xD

EDIT:
I'm much too cheap to pay for cable. Heck, the only time I turn on my TV is to watch movies, Zorro reruns on DVD, and Star Trek on DVD.

I'll see if I can check those out online though. On my side of the political spectrum (the "right", I guess), Al Jazeera is seen as pretty shady.
While I respect your position, I was in South Africa for Christmas '08 while Israel was bombing Palestine, and had a choice between every single major news channel. I used this to compare all of them, and Al-jazeera had the best, most unbiased coverage by far, with their reporters stnding in the middle of Palestine during air raids, while the CNN/BBC/CNBC correspondents were all in Israel saying that it was impossible, and way too dangerous, to get into Palestine -_-

Anyway, they've been my news channel of choice since then.

EDIT2:
Of course, seeing how insanely high European income tax is, it's no wonder you couldn't afford to pay for health insurance on top of it.
Most people could easily afford private healthcare here in Denmark(highest taxes in the world), but we don't need it. Besides, we feel that these taxes are fair, since they contribute to improving life quality and government services for everyone, instead of just being used on ourselves.

Oh, and our taxation system is devided into 4 groups separated by how much you earn, so the rich pay more than 60%, the not-so-rich around fifty, the not very well off around 40, and those with no money and on state support 0.(VERY rough numbers, as I don't have the time to look it up right now, but you get the idea.)

tom66
August 16th, 2009, 12:20 PM
The NHS works well, it is a very good organisation and I am very glad to have it in this country.

ZankerH
August 16th, 2009, 12:28 PM
Also, you never responded to the person who asked why you use FOSS software, when it is a socially liberal design methodology. Surely you should be using Apple/MSFT offerings?

As I said (Why do I have to write this before every one of my posts? Do you people even read them at all?), in a free market anyone is free to offer his product or service free of charge. It's not socialism if you get free stuff, it's socialism when you're forced to pay for other people's free stuff.



If free market medicine can't stand competition against socialised healthcare, it means it is not that good because people always choose what it is best for them; isn't this the basic assumption of liberal (in European sense) ideology?

The free market medicine can't stand competition because in the majority of European countries, the government socialist healthcare schemes pretty much have a monopoly on healthcare and its conduct can only be described as anti-competitive and monopoly abuse. As someone mentioned, "private" medicine means paying to cut in line with the same services and personnel. This means that the socialist healthcare is killing competition - people aren't given the option to pay more and receive better service, because there's no incentive for the medical personnel to provide better service seeing as how they can make all the money they want by exploiting the government socialist healthcare system. That's not free market, it's opportunistic exploitation.

blueturtl
August 16th, 2009, 12:33 PM
Another Finlander chiming in.

Having experienced both systems I have to say I do prefer socialized health care, but that isn't to say it hasn't got it's issues.

Private health care is in my experience much more responsive and tact when dealing with urgent matters. Unless you break a leg or develop a fatal episode you will end up waiting in line when using socialized health care. The most recent example I can think of was getting my dentist appointment. I called them two months ago, and they said I'd have to wait three until I'll even get an appointment. So I'm still waiting.

A run down as I see it:
PUBLIC HEALTH CARE
+ available to all
+ small or no cost to user (up front)
- goverments squander people's money and so often underfunded
- due to above, sometimes long waits/care quality issues

PRIVATE HEALTH CARE
+ excellent care with little wait
+ scales quickly to meet demands of patients (free market mechanism)
- not available to everyone
- insurance companies screw over their customers

Mehall
August 16th, 2009, 12:39 PM
As I said (Why do I have to write this before every one of my posts? Do you people even read them at all?), in a free market anyone is free to offer his product or service free of charge. It's not socialism if you get free stuff, it's socialism when you're forced to pay for other people's free stuff.

There is a difference between offering your product for free, and having a liberal/socialist development ethos.

Also: I said generally it was a cut in line. And why is that? Because the NHS is the best system reasonably affordable.

There are plenty of people who pay for private health care, yet it just means the get the same service as anyone else, as it is based upon needs of the patient, not based on what they can pay for.


I bet when Steve Jobs landed in hospital, the doctors were rubbing their hands, as they could offer every service they wanted to, many of which will have been completely unneeded, whereas in the UK, I am a student, working towards qualifications in life. In the US, were I to be gravely ill, I would be unable to afford treatment in most situations, yet here I don't have to worry, as It will be paid for on the understanding that I will contribute what I can.


From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)

While I disagree with the full marxism of the statement, it makes sense at a base level. And don't forget the UN link someone posted earlier. basic health care is a basic human right.

quinnten83
August 16th, 2009, 12:40 PM
Why do so many people have a problem with the concept of paying for products and services provided to them? Why do so many people believe healthcare should be exempt from this simple rule? That's how our society works. And I've yet to hear a single argument against that that isn't laden with emotion, sensationalism or accusations of being sarcastic (which I'm not).

Our society just has to move beyond caring about the lowest common denominator. Providing for those who can't provide for themselves isn't noble or respectful in any way, it's stupid and it sets back the people who do the providing part - which means that in a socialist system, everyone but the undeserving underachievers is being unfairly set back.

If people feel like paying for other people's healthcare, that's fine by me, but that's what charities are for, and charities are voluntary. If you like to feel helpful, help people with your own money, don't help the state steal from people who don't want to help, to give to people who did nothing to deserve help.

and yet you are using a FREE operating system.
I'm just saying practice what you preach.

ZankerH
August 16th, 2009, 12:41 PM
A run down as I see it:
PUBLIC HEALTH CARE
+ available to all
+ small or no cost to user (up front)
- goverments squander people's money and so often underfunded
- due to above, sometimes long waits/care quality issues

PRIVATE HEALTH CARE
+ excellent care with little wait
+ scales quickly to meet demands of patients (free market mechanism)
- not available to everyone
- insurance companies screw over their customers

The way I see it:
SOCIALIST HEALTHCARE:
- Everyone pays, regardless of whether you ever uses
- You don't pay directly for services, no funding transparency
- Ran by the government, the end-user has little or no choice but to consent or deny the treatment
-Lacking quality

FREE MARKET HEALTHCARE:
+ You pay only for yourself, only when you need to.
+ You get what you pay for
+ Free market competition ensures quality and prompt service
+ Ran by a healthy corporate environment where costumer is king, not a taxpaying drone.

Irihapeti
August 16th, 2009, 12:43 PM
Free market healthcare existed in the Wild West.

One of the results was snake-oil salesmen.

ZankerH
August 16th, 2009, 12:43 PM
and yet you are using a FREE operating system.
I'm just saying practice what you preach.

Jesus Christ, congratulations, you're the third person to point this out and gloat in intellectual superiority. To re-re-repeat myself, in a Free market, anyone is free to offer their product or service free of charge. In a socialist environment, some people are given products and services free of charge, while others are forced to pay for them.

And besides, FOSS isn't about price, it's about freedom, so drop this ridiculous argument already.

longtom
August 16th, 2009, 12:44 PM
They're not "born underprivileged" in any way just because their parents are poor. Since healthcare is the topic, public education available for free to everyone is more than sufficient to get a job that pays well enough to pay for your basic healthcare needs, no mater how poor your parents were.

You are obviously not getting out much. I reckon you should. What you are writing above is false. And of course you know it. Somebody who sidesteps the topic regularly with rhetoric nothings and lives in 4 European countries is intelligent enough to grasp, that above statement is not true.

In other words, you are proclaiming lies on purpose. People who do this are either stupid or dangerous. I don't think you are stupid....

ZankerH
August 16th, 2009, 12:46 PM
Free market healthcare existed in the Wild West.

One of the results was snake-oil salesmen.


Yes, and state sponsored healthcare existed in ancient greece. One of the results was people being euthanised by exsanguination for stomach pains and being possessed by demons.

This has nothing to do with the administration method and everything to do with medical knowledge at the time. Now stop making inappropriate comparisons.

Irihapeti
August 16th, 2009, 12:50 PM
Now stop making inappropriate comparisons.

Inappropriate according to whom?

jrothwell97
August 16th, 2009, 12:57 PM
I hate to sound un-civil, but most of your arguments are utter nonsense.


The way I see it:
SOCIALIST HEALTHCARE:
- Everyone pays, regardless of whether you ever uses
But if a person who needs it can't afford it under a free market system, they're screwed, unless they go groveling to someone who will eventually agree to pay for them.

Personally speaking, if my NI contributions help to save someone's life or put someone's cancer in remission, it's worth every penny.


- You don't pay directly for services, no funding transparency
I'm trying to work out why this is in any way a bad thing. So if you object to men having vasectomies, you have no control over whether or not your NI contributions go towards vasectomies??


- Ran by the government, the end-user has little or no choice but to consent or deny the treatment
Again, nonsense. Aside from the fact that these are healthcare professionals who almost always know about the best option, if there are multiple options, you're always told about them and are given the chance to make an informed choice.


-Lacking quality
I understand that in some EU countries, the health system is comparatively poor. However, I've never had a problem with socialised healthcare in the UK - in fact, I've always found the service to be of exceptional quality.

It's probably safe to say that everyone in the UK knows someone who owes their life to the NHS. Personally, I know three.


FREE MARKET HEALTHCARE:
+ You pay only for yourself, only when you need to.
So people who can't pay (through no fault of their own, more often than not) get nothing.


+ Free market competition ensures quality and prompt service
Fair, although the waiting times argument is one I always found flawed: surely, if you have an operation that can wait, you go towards the back of the queue to make space for the person with a burst appendix?


+ Ran by a healthy corporate environment where costumer is king, not a taxpaying drone.
But if the customer can't afford it, they have no control, do they?

slakkie
August 16th, 2009, 01:08 PM
Stop feeding the troll guys.

quinnten83
August 16th, 2009, 01:08 PM
Jesus Christ, congratulations, you're the third person to point this out and gloat in intellectual superiority. To re-re-repeat myself, in a Free market, anyone is free to offer their product or service free of charge. In a socialist environment, some people are given products and services free of charge, while others are forced to pay for them.

And besides, FOSS isn't about price, it's about freedom, so drop this ridiculous argument already.


Not gloating, I just think your a F*** hypocrite and disruptive to the real question of the thread.
I don't share your Spartan and Darwinian views, but I can't argue on what you seem to feel is logic, because my views and values are based on humanity and compassion. Something obviously your robotic mind can not comprehend and therefore automatically dismisses.
Yes, I went there. I made a personal attack (something I usually will not do),and the reason for that is because I find you personally offensive.

FLOSS is about Freedom but this particular one is also free of charge.

BuffaloX
August 16th, 2009, 01:09 PM
Does it matter? I'm a citizen of the EU, I commonly reside in four European countries and less commonly in another two, and pretty much every European country has basically the same socialist healthcare system, the only fundamental difference is the amount of your money they take for it - which seems to be inversely correlated to how well developed and widely used private medicine is in that country. Socialist healthcare kills free market medicine, it's that simple.

Since the only developed country in the world that doesn't have universal health care is the USA, we don't have a lot to compare with.
But that one example performs extremely poorly in comparison. It's more than twice as expensive, and on average doesn't show better results.

You can have public funding and private clinics/hospitals, so it doesn't kill free market medicine. Some EU countries use this model. Other countries have both public funding and public hospitals.
Both these models perform better than the private funding and private clinic model.

Your previous argument about private clinics showing better profitability is absurd, a publicly owned clinic is not about profitability,
it's about cost/results, a private clinic is about profit.

ZankerH
August 16th, 2009, 01:10 PM
But if a person who needs it can't afford it under a free market system, they're screwed, unless they go groveling to someone who will eventually agree to pay for them.

Correct.


Personally speaking, if my NI contributions help to save someone's life or put someone's cancer in remission, it's worth every penny.

Again, I understand that some people naturally feel good about helping other people, even with money. I understand and support that, but that's no reason to make the rest of us do the same.



I'm trying to work out why this is in any way a bad thing. So if you object to men having vasectomies, you have no control over whether or not your NI contributions go towards vasectomies??

You picked a very non-conspicuous procedure. I imagine I can't possibly be the only one outraged by the fact that some of my tax money is being used to fund abortions, sex education for children and birth control. Christianity is after all still the majority religion in Europe. And from what I hear, muslims aren't too happy about those, either. (disclamer: I am an atheist)



Again, nonsense. Aside from the fact that these are healthcare professionals who almost always know about the best option, if there are multiple options, you're always told about them and are given the chance to make an informed choice.

Fair enough.



I understand that in some EU countries, the health system is comparatively poor. However, I've never had a problem with socialised healthcare in the UK - in fact, I've always found the service to be of exceptional quality.

Good for you.


Fair, although the waiting times argument is one I always found flawed: surely, if you have an operation that can wait, you go towards the back of the queue to make space for the person with a burst appendix?

Because I don't care about the burst appendix guy, and because I should be able to pay to have my surgery as soon as possible.



But if the customer can't afford it, they have no control, do they?

A costumer who can't afford it...isn't a costumer.

Bachstelze
August 16th, 2009, 01:15 PM
Thanks to a certain someone, this thread is no longer the civil and friendly one it once were. I'm therefore closing it for staff review.