Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not likely considering the varied demographics of our society as well as the mooching mentality of many here.
Well, if countries with a more varied demographic has managed it...Switzerland with far more immigrants than the US, Germany with as many and while carrying the former Eastern Germany, and the Netherlands with their hugely varied demographic...are their governments so much better than the US?
Switching to private insurance-run systems would seem to be much easier for the US than something like the NHS anyway. However, it is worth remembering that the NHS was set up in the ruins of WW2, by a near-bankerupt UK...with a number of wounded and crippled soldiers and bombing victims that seem unreal today.
My dad 80 years old, was diagnosed with Parkinson's about 7-8 years ago.
He has very slowly declined. He doesn't have the shakes, like most Parkinson's patients. He just has a hard time taking that first step, when he starts to walk, and he falls all the time.
There was a thing on the news about a new finding, that over ½ of all Parkinson's patients are misdiagnosed. They had found some patients had some kind of fluid around the brain and it was pressuring the brain. They drain this fluid off and it is like night and day with 100% as good as the old person they once were.
Told my dad about it and he got a new doctor. Sure enough that is what is wrong with my dad!!!! We could get the old dad back!!
NOPE!!! Our government run Medicare and Medicaid, have decided my dad is too old and it is not worth it to them to spend the money on a doctor to do this procedure.
My dad is not going to get what he needs for his quality of life to be as good as possible.
Just think what Obamacare and if it ever goes to a totally government controlled healthcare system
Because a properly run UHC has not come into affect in the USA, patients have to put up with second rate systems. Medicare/aid helps millions but it is just like trying to use a band-aid to fix a severed leg and then people complain that it doesn't work properly. Imagine if the Voucher system came into effect.... Medicare/aid will seem like "Nervana" compared to that.
In a properly run UHC like as in the UK and other Countries, the Govt funds the System but the local health authorities and Doctors decide on treatments etc. The situation you now find yourself with your father would not occur in a UHC. My Father was 88, had a huge cardiac arrest, was dead for ten minutes, defibbed 5 times, brought back to life after 10 mins dead and was given a double heart bypass, new mytral valve and pacemaker. He was on 24 hour critical care and watched every minute by the cardiac team until he was well enough to go into a ccu ward and then given every test possible and major heart surgery, he even was given a special "vac" machine to take home to speed the recovery of the wound in his leg from the harvesting of veins for the bypass. He paid nothing. He is now in fantastic health and having regular check ups and looking forward to his 90th birthday in Sept. He even repassed his heart medical to regain his London Taxi Driver licence and is now the oldest Taxi driver in London. Many in the UK with Alzheimers or Parkinsons etc etc etc are given treatments, therapies etc every day.
Having a Health System dictated by the Insurance companies leads to inferior health cover for anyone not with a insurance company and restricted treatments or even denial for treatment if you do have insurance cover.
Obama wanted a fully funded UHC but had to settle for a watered down bill that at least helps many with pre conditions. If Obama had done what he wanted to do then America could have the finest health service in the World instead of the most inneficient and most expensive health system in the World.
The NHS works well for the most part, I had excellent treatment for my broken ankle this Christmas. NHS dentistry sucks though. I need implants to stop my teeth moving, but I can only get this privately at a cost of £6000. This probably wouldn't have been needed if I could have had root canal surgery with an endodontist instead of my regular dentist
Well, if countries with a more varied demographic has managed it...Switzerland with far more immigrants than the US, Germany with as many and while carrying the former Eastern Germany, and the Netherlands with their hugely varied demographic...are their governments so much better than the US?
Switching to private insurance-run systems would seem to be much easier for the US than something like the NHS anyway. However, it is worth remembering that the NHS was set up in the ruins of WW2, by a near-bankerupt UK...with a number of wounded and crippled soldiers and bombing victims that seem unreal today.
Most people do not understand the political and national security motives behind the setting up of the NHS.
From a political perspective, there was huge pressure for the NHS from ordinary people who were not willing to go back to depression era private health care which mean't that most people had little or no access to decent care.
From a national security perspective, the British Army had been shocked by the poor health of recruits - often bordering on malnutrition - when Britain mobilized in 1939. There was a military need for healthy young men.
The NHS works well for the most part, I had excellent treatment for my broken ankle this Christmas. NHS dentistry sucks though. I need implants to stop my teeth moving, but I can only get this privately at a cost of £6000. This probably wouldn't have been needed if I could have had root canal surgery with an endodontist instead of my regular dentist
Most European health systems do not cover dental care well, if at all. When I lived in Switzerland, I would go into France for dental care because it was good quality and much cheaper.
In the US, I had separate dental insurance but, at $80 a month for $3000 of care/year, it was expensive and, over a period of 10 years, I probably paid more in insurance than I got in care. So, I dropped it.
What is preventing YOU from declaring your mom as YOUR DEPENDENT and adding her to your insurance policy? Families should take care of their own before looking to pick another family's pockets.
Well mate, for one I'm a broke-ass college student. Two, your friends in the health insurance industry don't take on people with "pre-existing conditions." Thirdly, even if they did, that'd go back to point one: it'd be incredibly expensive.
That's why I'm working toward a well-paying degree though. I wanna be able to afford to take care of the people I love. And my mother's just one example. How about all the other people who are in similar situations but don't have any family to turn to?
no one is arguing that there shouldn't be some sort of safety net. The question is whether or not the Federal Government should be doing it. The Constitution just doesn't allow for a massive thing like that.
There is nothing wrong with the states implementing universal healthcare and the federal government providing a network that allows easy transition from state to state in such cases as moving or needing to get treatment if you are away from home.
Private insurance is no different than Medicare when it comes to cutting people off from treatments they need...and usually worse. At one point in time my husband needed a specialized therapy that cost $180 an hour. He was on private insurance and they required a documented 10% increase in ability every 6th visit to keep the therapy going. For profit insurance companies are going to keep setting nearly impossible Litmus Tests like that. You can bet your bootie that if a lot of people could make that 10% every 6th visit they'd change the rule to 12% or 15% every 5th visit. Tax payer funded care also has Litmus Tests (call them death panels if you like) but if you take the profit out of the equation at least they have more money to give those Litmus Tests a higher set-point. I'm for a single-payer system as well.
Our government run Medicare and Medicaid, have decided my dad is too old and it is not worth it to them to spend the money on a doctor to do this procedure.
My dad is not going to get what he needs for his quality of life to be as good as possible.
I am sorry about your Dad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Reader
Only in America. No other country allows insurance panels to decide who gets treatment and who doesn't.
That's a common misunderstanding.
Does Medicare deny treatment? Or does Medicare deny payment for the treatment?
No one is saying the man can't have the procedure done - they're saying that they won't pay for it.
There's an appeal process for these kinds of decisions - have you tried it?
If Medicare flatly refuses to cover the procedure, does your father or any member of your family have the means to cover the costs?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
