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.
The United States has no universal health care service and obese Americans and smokers that can't afford surgery, have no insurance, still get no surgery.
There are private hospitals in the UK I'm sure. Just like there are private security forces in the United States for hire for those that can afford them, even though there is a culture of socialized, government controlled security in the US form city police to state troopers to FBI forensic investigators to the Coast Guard and other branches of the military.
The VA hospital is socialized health care and it works fine for me.
Look, our health care system is not where it should be, but yes, I wan't a free-market consumer driven system with private health insurance companies. These companies should be able to compete for business nationwide, which as of now, they really can't do. Unless your employer happens to be in a different state, you will be buying insurance from a carrier in your state. That closes the consumer off from plans for sale in 49 other states! That's terrible for consumers! My wife and I are self-employed (and in the Mental Health industry, too (provider side) and we pay 100% for our health coverage. We are extremely limited to plans we can buy, because we can't shop plans out of state.
No federal law prevents insurance from being sold across state lines.
Each state regulates all insurance companies and insurance products sold in the state. No tweo states have the same rules, regulations, standards, required services or medications.
A few states have attempted to woo out of state insurers to increase the depth of their insurance markets. No takers.
The premium for the same or similar plan can vary within and across states. My state, Illinois, has 13 regions. The same plan costs more or less dependent on which region one resides in.
The competitiveness of the healthcare market or lack of and claims history ( general health) of a region both matter, a lot.
Insurers have been engaging in mega mergers and acquisitions for decades and as a result there has been a massive contraction in providers, usually followed by huge increases in premiums. This has been going on for decades with no end in sight.
M&A activity reduces competition and tends to cause consumers prices to increase. M&A also results in job losses as the combined entities eliminate redundancies and have more buying power for investments in technology substitution. On the flip side, those advocating for the M&A, argue that it will enable them to reduce costs and survive.
Most recently, the M&A's pending DOJ approval threatened and then executed a departure from the Obamacare exchanges in some states. They do however typically continue to offer products off the exchanges which means only those who do not need a subsidy can apply.
Can you imagine. 50 states with governor appointed insurance commissions operating within their own little bubble worlds. Back when, when Hillarycare was proposed , she advocated for a common standard and cross state markets. That bombed. Then came her pitch to create regional exchanges. That too bombed.
No worries. Trump has promised " to replace Obamacare with something wnderful that will take care of everybody and the government will pay for it". You just can't make up this stuff.
Great that it's "on-hold". I didn't see the other article when I posted (obviously). That said, it sure sounds like more of this type of thing is down the pipeline in the UK.
Probably austerity cuts that American neocons and the big banks have been pushing across the world.
Medicare is the largest buyer of prescription medication in the world .
Congress twice denied Medicare the ability to negotiate the price of prescription medications and/or buy medications from approved foreign countries like Canada.
The same Congress then turned around and created a spiff new Medicare benefit for prescription medications that loses money because premiums are not enough to cover the cost that Medicare cannot negotiate.
Big Pharm Lobby was pleased that Congress sought to protect their interests before those of the people.
If we're going to take live style into the equation regarding how we cover their healthcare, what about people who do extreme sports, get a lot of speeding tickets, skate boarders, ride motorcycles, are sexually permissive, jump out of airplanes or have high risk jobs like being a police officer or being a fireman? Most the people taking up expensive beds in closed-head injury wards are people under thirty who got hurt doing something they loved doing.
I concur. Plus, there are people like myself with very fast metabolisms. My problem is the opposite of most obese people, it's extremely hard for me to gain weight and muscle mass. My metabolism has finely slowed sense I'm older now but it is still so fast that I get slight love handles at the most. Some people don't even consider them large enough to constitue love handles on me.
This does not excuse people like myself from remaining skinny with no muscle mass at all and it does not excuse obese people from not trimming down to a reasonable weight. But in either cases neither of us necessarily lobbied God for and requested these bodies we were born into before birth.
Obesity is a significant problem--economically on the health care system--that encouraging prevent practices throughout society would be better than waiting until a problem occurs in then trying to treat it.
Look, our health care system is not where it should be, but yes, I wan't a free-market consumer driven system with private health insurance companies. These companies should be able to compete for business nationwide, which as of now, they really can't do. Unless your employer happens to be in a different state, you will be buying insurance from a carrier in your state. That closes the consumer off from plans for sale in 49 other states! That's terrible for consumers! My wife and I are self-employed (and in the Mental Health industry, too (provider side) and we pay 100% for our health coverage. We are extremely limited to plans we can buy, because we can't shop plans out of state. If everyone could shop nationwide, the lousy plans/insurers would go the way of the dodo bird. I also think that employer based insurance sucks, again, because it doesn't let the consumer shop for the best plan for them. They are often stuck with poor plans (high deductibles or weak coverage) offered by their employer who wants to keep costs down as much as possible. Those plans might be fine for some young/single/healthy employees, but not good for others. I'd like to see us move towards employers simply providing whatever funds they would pay towards insurance and let the employee go out and shop plans on their own with those dollars. They can then PICK the plan best for THEM. As a provider we see great plans, and others that are absolute garbage. Being self-employed we can at least pick a good plan for us, though we are paying alot of money for it. At least we are in control.
And you may not be aware, but some health insurers in the US are for-profit and others are non-profit. Let the consumer decide what plan works for them. Frankly, I could care less if they are for-profit, as long as I get to make the choice of who has my policy.
You see, a true free-market for health insurance is the best way for this to work, again, because if an insurer has a lousy product, people won't buy it. The insurance company will either need to improve their product or go out of business. That's the beauty of a truly free market.
ETA: And I'm not sneering at NHS. I only posted an article talking about an actual plan to change your system in a part of the UK. Yeah, they decided to not do that (now) based on another article. I didn't make this up, this is/was news coming out of the UK. That said, I'm very glad I don't live anywhere in Europe. I don't like how things operate over there.
So you are against government Medicare and Medicaid? Everyone for himself and disabled and elderly shouldnt get any help?
A truly free market will deny you coverage on any pre-existing condition and any disease that will turn out to be expensive for your insurer (even if it wasnt a pre-existing condition) means you will risk death as soon as they find out you are too expensive.
No federal law prevents insurance from being sold across state lines.
Each state regulates all insurance companies and insurance products sold in the state. No tweo states have the same rules, regulations, standards, required services or medications.
A few states have attempted to woo out of state insurers to increase the depth of their insurance markets. No takers.
The premium for the same or similar plan can vary within and across states. My state, Illinois, has 13 regions. The same plan costs more or less dependent on which region one resides in.
Whether it's the Federal government OR state governments preventing it...it doesn't matter..it's still government interference. Health insurance is NOT being sold across state lines due to OVER REGULATION, which mean less competition, which translates to less options for consumers, and higher premiums. I'm not even a little surprised an insurer may not want to deal with the myriad of laws of 49 other states. We have managed to strangle ourselves with laws and regulations to the point of a broken system. I stand by my post.
So you are against government Medicare and Medicaid? Everyone for himself and disabled and elderly shouldnt get any help?
I never said that. I have no problem with a system for the truly disabled and poor elderly. I have an up close perspective from the provider side (Medicaid), and the abuse is unbelievable. Many young, able bodied people are working the Medicaid system like you can't believe. I see it almost everyday. They have no "skin in the game" and the tax payers are footing the bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike
A truly free market will deny you coverage on any pre-existing condition and any disease that will turn out to be expensive for your insurer (even if it wasnt a pre-existing condition) means you will risk death as soon as they find out you are too expensive.
Again, when did I say I was an anarchist or that there should be NO LAW? I didn't. Of course there needs to be basic standards. The problem with many that want socialized/single payer health care is you want to add more bureaucracy, more laws, and even more regulation. You seem to think that is the cure for everything, but it's not. It should be as free-market as possible, but of course there need to be standards, just like you'd want your surgeon to be properly trained and qualified to operate on you.
No system will be perfect, I'll grant you that, but I'll take a free market approach over a socialized/government controlled plan every time.
Probably austerity cuts that American neocons and the big banks have been pushing across the world.
Sorry Charlie, not going to pin the UK's problems on the US.
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.
