Question for the international members

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Question for the international members

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Question for the international members

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Question for the international members - 11/25/2015 7:32:53 PM

FelineRanger

Posts: 658
Joined: 9/4/2012
Status: offline

Some background first. Apologies because many disparate elements went into this question and I'm just trying to organize them coherently.

I only recently saw Michael Moore's Sicko and knew from personal experience the shortcomings of the American medical industry, which is run by bean counters instead of doctors and their patients. Moore presents the Canadian system, among others, as far superior to the American. But I have recently been chatting with someone in Toronto who contradicted some of Moore's claims with her own experiences. We also got into some detail about Canadian politics, which are apparently just as corrupt as American.

I have also done time in prison and have nothing good to say about the prison system here because it is abusive instead of rehabilitative. I have read that the Scandinavian countries, and the rest of the EU to varying degrees, have greater measures in place to protect people. Call it welfare if you like, but what I have read says that their governments provide far better for those who can't provide for themselves. Universal health care would have enabled me to avoid the bad decisions that led to my offense. Even if I had gone to prison in those countries, what I read says I would have experienced a truly rehabilitative atmosphere instead of being in more danger from the corrections officers than from other inmates.

But my conversation with the person in Toronto has me rethinking those "greener pastures" and I have two questions. First, are those reports about greater government generosity accurate? Second, what's the trade off besides much higher taxes? Are those countries, for example, more restrictive toward certain activities that don't get much notice in the States? Thanks.

_____________________________

Bill

Post #: 1

RE: Question for the international members - 11/25/2015 8:01:26 PM

MercTech

Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline

U.S. Citizen working in Ontario.

In theory the Canadian health care system sounds wonderful. But, what do you do when every primary care provider withing 200 kilometers says, "we are quota full of patients, sorry"

(in reply to FelineRanger)

Post #: 2

RE: Question for the international members - 11/25/2015 8:30:34 PM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

I have an online slave in Canada and have for years. Over those years, she has been sick, injured and recently had 4 cancerous tumors removed from a lung. She so far, seems to be cancer free.

She has only usually waited a few days to see a GP and has never had to wait more than a couple of months to see any doctor including many specialists, those being the longest waits. Through all of her problems, she has never had to pay a dime and only recently had a co-pay on some relatively expensive meds. I write relatively meaning, relative to Canada as they are all cheaper than in the US because Canada tells big pharma that if the provincial and central govt. can't negotiate the prices...they can't sell them there at all. In Ontario at least, doctors see patients 7 days a week and late at night.

Obviously another bit of socialism according to today's redefining of that word because the meds (and medical care in general) are now priced in the interest of the whole of Canadian society and not strictly in the narrow interests of business profits and the investor class.

In no uncertain terms, I'd take the Canadian, British, German, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish and Japanese model...over the US model.

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 11/25/2015 8:33:02 PM >

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to MercTech)

Post #: 3

RE: Question for the international members - 11/26/2015 7:55:28 AM

tj444

Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

U.S. Citizen working in Ontario.

In theory the Canadian health care system sounds wonderful. But, what do you do when every primary care provider withing 200 kilometers says, "we are quota full of patients, sorry"

then you must be in the sticks, of course there will be areas that dont have enough doctors (cuz most doctors want to work in the cities).. what do you want the govt/system to do? how do you force someone to work where they dont want to? its a free country and you cant do that.. I expect its the same in the US with doctors wanting to work in the cities and not in the sticks.. And is anyone forcing you to work in Ontario? You can always go back to the US and enjoy the health care nightmare there..

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to MercTech)

Post #: 4

RE: Question for the international members - 11/26/2015 8:25:49 AM

tj444

Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FelineRanger

Some background first. Apologies because many disparate elements went into this question and I'm just trying to organize them coherently.

I only recently saw Michael Moore's Sicko and knew from personal experience the shortcomings of the American medical industry, which is run by bean counters instead of doctors and their patients. Moore presents the Canadian system, among others, as far superior to the American. But I have recently been chatting with someone in Toronto who contradicted some of Moore's claims with her own experiences. We also got into some detail about Canadian politics, which are apparently just as corrupt as American.

I have also done time in prison and have nothing good to say about the prison system here because it is abusive instead of rehabilitative. I have read that the Scandinavian countries, and the rest of the EU to varying degrees, have greater measures in place to protect people. Call it welfare if you like, but what I have read says that their governments provide far better for those who can't provide for themselves. Universal health care would have enabled me to avoid the bad decisions that led to my offense. Even if I had gone to prison in those countries, what I read says I would have experienced a truly rehabilitative atmosphere instead of being in more danger from the corrections officers than from other inmates.

But my conversation with the person in Toronto has me rethinking those "greener pastures" and I have two questions. First, are those reports about greater government generosity accurate? Second, what's the trade off besides much higher taxes? Are those countries, for example, more restrictive toward certain activities that don't get much notice in the States? Thanks.

You couldnt pay me to live in Ontario.. I am a western girl.. the east is a different world in so many ways.. each province has its own "personality" and political leanings.. Ask your Toronto friend if she would trade the Canadian medical system for the US one.. I bet she would say "no f'n way".. As far as the movie goes, I havent seen it but some things might have changed since it was made..

The problem with thinking about greener pastures is that you expect it all to be perfect and it never is cuz nothing is perfect.. I expected the US to be bad before coming here but its been a lot worse than even I thought.. You talk about govt restrictions? the US has plenty of those.. if there is a way to make something that should be simple and straightforward, the govt (city, state, federal) makes it take 10 times longer, 10 times more paperwork and stupid roadblocks and hoops you have to jump thru with gottchas that can stop you cold from being able to do what you want to do.. Here you have 50 states and they each have their own regs/laws & ways of doing things..

Imo, you cant really get a good sense of a country and if its a good place for you to live until you have lived there for a few years.. Jeff in BC is an American and he has said before he likes it in Canada (& its medical system) and wouldnt go back to the US.. he has experienced both...

But if you have a criminal conviction, that in itself could bar you from entering other countries (even as a tourist).. Former Prez GW Bush had a DWI and if he wanted to visit Canada he would have had to apply for special permission to be allowed in.. (the same goes for any Canadian with a criminal conviction wanting to enter the US, btw)..

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to FelineRanger)

Post #: 5

RE: Question for the international members - 11/26/2015 8:59:31 AM

FelineRanger

Posts: 658
Joined: 9/4/2012
Status: offline

I am depressingly well aware of the international travel restrictions created by my conviction and the fact that emigrating elsewhere is pretty much a pipe dream. All I'm really looking for is a more balanced view of other places that seem to treat their citizens better than the U.S does.

_____________________________

Bill

(in reply to tj444)

Post #: 6

RE: Question for the international members - 11/26/2015 9:11:43 AM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FelineRanger

Some background first. Apologies because many disparate elements went into this question and I'm just trying to organize them coherently.

I only recently saw Michael Moore's Sicko and knew from personal experience the shortcomings of the American medical industry, which is run by bean counters instead of doctors and their patients. Moore presents the Canadian system, among others, as far superior to the American. But I have recently been chatting with someone in Toronto who contradicted some of Moore's claims with her own experiences. We also got into some detail about Canadian politics, which are apparently just as corrupt as American.

I have also done time in prison and have nothing good to say about the prison system here because it is abusive instead of rehabilitative. I have read that the Scandinavian countries, and the rest of the EU to varying degrees, have greater measures in place to protect people. Call it welfare if you like, but what I have read says that their governments provide far better for those who can't provide for themselves. Universal health care would have enabled me to avoid the bad decisions that led to my offense. Even if I had gone to prison in those countries, what I read says I would have experienced a truly rehabilitative atmosphere instead of being in more danger from the corrections officers than from other inmates.

But my conversation with the person in Toronto has me rethinking those "greener pastures" and I have two questions. First, are those reports about greater government generosity accurate? Second, what's the trade off besides much higher taxes? Are those countries, for example, more restrictive toward certain activities that don't get much notice in the States? Thanks.

Allo Feline.
Ive lived in Toronto for 27 years, I havent lived anywhere else.I havent used anything but OHIP care since I got here, so mine is only personal experience.
During that time, Ive had, 8 ops, with hospital stays longer than three days. Two kids, emergency surgery twice, numerous MRIs CAT scans, and a zillion other tests.
Its not perfect, its not always timely, it can be messy and it doesnt cover everything for "free" such as dental care, vision care, and some "holistic/homeopathic care" Wait times for some ops can be lengthy, but the longest Ive had to wait, was six weeks because of a scheduling problem with two surgeons, and my own health issues causing a delay(they dont like to operate on someone with pneumonia.) and my own bloody mindedness and procrastination.

I have a medical issue that needed a drug that was soo bloody expensive, I couldnt afford it, so applied to a fund here attached to the Gov plan, and they have covered the cost for me. Im not going broke paying a months rent for medication that is keeping me relatively normal.

Your biggest problem is the crim record, unless you can get a pardon, its doubtful you would be allowed over the border( a close friend had a few DWIs on his record and he was turned away at the border.

The prison/justice/reform system is lousy here, toronto cops by and large do a good job, but it is getting more"militarized" and mean.
Mental health care is spotty, especially emergency care and too often patients are put in jail, the same as the UK and US. Homelessness is not a happy situation either.
As the first half of my life was spent in the UK, I wouldnt live anywhere that didnt have healthcare for everyone.
The NHS I grew up in worked in, lived in, and it all started falling apart when the cons, got in.
The same happened here, when the tories took over and cut everything, but it IS getting better, it isnt a perfect system, but far better than what ive seen and heard from the american friends I have.
I would have visited the US a lot more if I hadnt worried about the cost of having to use an emergency room while there, even with medical insurance.

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to FelineRanger)

Post #: 7

RE: Question for the international members - 11/26/2015 11:37:27 AM

tj444

Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FelineRanger

I am depressingly well aware of the international travel restrictions created by my conviction and the fact that emigrating elsewhere is pretty much a pipe dream. All I'm really looking for is a more balanced view of other places that seem to treat their citizens better than the U.S does.

I dont know that its a pipe dream.. I think it depends on a lot of things, the offense and how serious it was.. I think if your conviction was a one time thing when you were a kid/young and you have been on the straight and narrow since, become productive, educated, able to do work that companies & countries want & is in demand, have good references on your character today, etc then you could apply for a waiver.. I dont have any experience on what is required to be a waiver/permission but if its something you want you should look into what is required for countries you are interested in.. You wouldnt have much to lose, all they can do is say no... I dont know if a person in the US can get their record expunged or get a pardon, you should look into that first..

Oh, and yes, other countries do treat their citizens much, much, much better than the US does..

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to FelineRanger)

Post #: 8

RE: Question for the international members - 11/26/2015 12:24:54 PM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: FelineRanger

I am depressingly well aware of the international travel restrictions created by my conviction and the fact that emigrating elsewhere is pretty much a pipe dream. All I'm really looking for is a more balanced view of other places that seem to treat their citizens better than the U.S does.

I dont know that its a pipe dream.. I think it depends on a lot of things, the offense and how serious it was.. I think if your conviction was a one time thing when you were a kid/young and you have been on the straight and narrow since, become productive, educated, able to do work that companies & countries want & is in demand, have good references on your character today, etc then you could apply for a waiver.. I dont have any experience on what is required to be a waiver/permission but if its something you want you should look into what is required for countries you are interested in.. You wouldnt have much to lose, all they can do is say no... I dont know if a person in the US can get their record expunged or get a pardon, you should look into that first..

Oh, and yes, other countries do treat their citizens much, much, much better than the US does..

THis....:)

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to tj444)

Post #: 9

RE: Question for the international members - 11/26/2015 1:05:13 PM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FelineRanger

Some background first. Apologies because many disparate elements went into this question and I'm just trying to organize them coherently.

I only recently saw Michael Moore's Sicko and knew from personal experience the shortcomings of the American medical industry, which is run by bean counters instead of doctors and their patients. Moore presents the Canadian system, among others, as far superior to the American. But I have recently been chatting with someone in Toronto who contradicted some of Moore's claims with her own experiences. We also got into some detail about Canadian politics, which are apparently just as corrupt as American.

I have also done time in prison and have nothing good to say about the prison system here because it is abusive instead of rehabilitative. I have read that the Scandinavian countries, and the rest of the EU to varying degrees, have greater measures in place to protect people. Call it welfare if you like, but what I have read says that their governments provide far better for those who can't provide for themselves. Universal health care would have enabled me to avoid the bad decisions that led to my offense. Even if I had gone to prison in those countries, what I read says I would have experienced a truly rehabilitative atmosphere instead of being in more danger from the corrections officers than from other inmates.

But my conversation with the person in Toronto has me rethinking those "greener pastures" and I have two questions. First, are those reports about greater government generosity accurate? Second, what's the trade off besides much higher taxes? Are those countries, for example, more restrictive toward certain activities that don't get much notice in the States? Thanks.

On the two points you mention:

1) Health

2) Jail

Health. Read the accounts of Americans who live here and they pretty much unanimously state that our healthcare system is much better value for money than your version. But, you'd have to read them for yourself.

Jail. Our system is a shambles. You really do not want to copy us on this one. Us being England. It is a complete failure and criminals are not serving due time and punishment for their crimes.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to FelineRanger)

Post #: 10

RE: Question for the international members - 11/26/2015 1:11:25 PM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FelineRanger

I am depressingly well aware of the international travel restrictions created by my conviction and the fact that emigrating elsewhere is pretty much a pipe dream. All I'm really looking for is a more balanced view of other places that seem to treat their citizens better than the U.S does.

When it comes to crime I think the Americans are closer to the mark than most. The principle that you have forgone the rewards that come with being a law-abiding member of a community, by virtue of being destructive within that community, seems to apply in the United States. Not here - we have all sorts of people campaigning for prisoners' rights.

When it comes to health. I think our system just works. It's consistently ranked as the best value for money in the world.

But, it is glaringly obvious that we, the English, are much more pragmatic than you. You're very ideological. So, if government is involved it must be bad, whereas we thing if it works then who or what is providing the service isn't all that important.

I've been in an American hospital and my verdict would be: bloated numbers of employees, bloated costs and inordinately inefficient. What I saw in a New Orleans hospital, while very modern and comfortable, boggled the mind in terms of the service you're getting for what you're paying. Personally I would call it a complete and utter piss take.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to FelineRanger)

Post #: 11

RE: Question for the international members - 11/26/2015 1:33:13 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: MercTech

U.S. Citizen working in Ontario.

In theory the Canadian health care system sounds wonderful. But, what do you do when every primary care provider withing 200 kilometers says, "we are quota full of patients, sorry"

The same thing you do in this country when you cannot afford care or your insurance lacks the coverage needed.

(in reply to MercTech)

Post #: 12

RE: Question for the international members - 11/26/2015 1:43:04 PM

eulero83

Posts: 1470
Joined: 11/4/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FelineRanger

Some background first. Apologies because many disparate elements went into this question and I'm just trying to organize them coherently.

I only recently saw Michael Moore's Sicko and knew from personal experience the shortcomings of the American medical industry, which is run by bean counters instead of doctors and their patients. Moore presents the Canadian system, among others, as far superior to the American. But I have recently been chatting with someone in Toronto who contradicted some of Moore's claims with her own experiences. We also got into some detail about Canadian politics, which are apparently just as corrupt as American.

I have also done time in prison and have nothing good to say about the prison system here because it is abusive instead of rehabilitative. I have read that the Scandinavian countries, and the rest of the EU to varying degrees, have greater measures in place to protect people. Call it welfare if you like, but what I have read says that their governments provide far better for those who can't provide for themselves. Universal health care would have enabled me to avoid the bad decisions that led to my offense. Even if I had gone to prison in those countries, what I read says I would have experienced a truly rehabilitative atmosphere instead of being in more danger from the corrections officers than from other inmates.

But my conversation with the person in Toronto has me rethinking those "greener pastures" and I have two questions. First, are those reports about greater government generosity accurate? Second, what's the trade off besides much higher taxes? Are those countries, for example, more restrictive toward certain activities that don't get much notice in the States? Thanks.

HEALTH CARE

I live in Italy, as in other places there might be differences among regions for what concerns health care, here it's basically divided in three areas, the south where... well... let's say it's better not be sick, the center north that has a functional health care system, and the two autonomous provinces that have state of the art health care. It's not free for all, when requiring an exam or a specialistic visit or therapy, if you're not considered poor you must pay what we call a "ticket" it's around 20€ and for what I know doesn't change based on the cost of the operation, if you need just to see a GP it's free and usually requires a couple hours in the waiting room, they perform also house calls, I don't know if in that case you need to pay, for a normal visit tourists pay I guess 15€ for the visit to a GP. They wark usually office hours during week days in the night or during festivities there are doctors that over that shift, but usually they are 1 every 4000 people while the GP are I guess one every 1000. ER is free if you don't go there for a problem that you had since 3 days and it's clearly not an emergency, people are sorted by how big of an emergency they are facing, once I had a very stiff neck I culdn't move and were in pain after giving me something to support the neck I waited 2 hours for the actual treatment. If you need some radiological exams not in an emergency situation you might wait a lot again people are sorted by danger and the GP have to rate them, blood exams are fast you just go there early in the morning and go away before breakfast. Dental care is usually performed by private practicioneers. If you want to skip the line you can look for the market, prices are affordable and public doctor can rent their office in the hospital for a part time private practice where you can get a more affordable price and short cue. I have to say that if you can drive 80km (50 miles) you can find a spot in a different ospital than the one 10km from your house still with the national health care system. I guess an american might be puzzled by two things here (for what I read in expats blogs): hospitals might be not as fancy as those I see in tv serials but they are clean and have all the necessary equipment, it's just many are in historical buildings usually 200 yers old; and you never look for a specialistic visit first but the first step is always the GP well or the ER they will address you.

PRISON

Our prisons are considered overcrouded this also because in recent years there's been a spike in crime due to immigration (I'm not saying immigrants are iherently bad I just say probably crime is reduced in the usual countries of origin for immigrants), it's very hard to be put in jail for non violent crimes and almost impossible for driving violations (I say almost beause for DUI it could happen if you can't pay the fine), for a lot of crimes there are house arrests or probation in case of first time offenders, While waiting for trial there is no bound a special judge decide if you can be just released, have a duty to sign every morning in the police station of your hometown, house arrests or jail, this based on the social threath you pose and if you are at flight risk. They say prison here is both punitive and rehabilitative but I would be as scared as hell to ever step in there, still it doesn't look anything like what I've seen in discovery channel about american prisons, I guess those for mafia members might be like that. If you are a good prisoner you get condoned 3 months every year of sentence, after 2/3 of the sentence you might apply for an external job, again it depends on the danger you pose a judge will decide but it's not a dream there are a fair chances, in that case you can go out in the morning and go back in the evening. As a genera feeling people would like a thougher prison sistem to contrast the crime.

(in reply to FelineRanger)

Post #: 13

RE: Question for the international members - 11/26/2015 1:50:04 PM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

U.S. Citizen working in Ontario.

In theory the Canadian health care system sounds wonderful. But, what do you do when every primary care provider withing 200 kilometers says, "we are quota full of patients, sorry"

Dunno. But in England not only do you have access to any GP practice, you have a choice.

Your ideological standpoint is playing tricks with your brain. It's essentially forcing you down a path where you believe, without evidence, that any public system must be inefficient in some way, such as "full quotas" and the like.

Don't believe it, mate.

The United States is ranked bottom of the industrialised nations for a very good reason.

You spend more than others for a service well below standard.

You've led yourselves down a path where you believe that private enterprise is the holy grail and just simply must be the optimum position.

Except on average you pay 3,500 of the Queen's Sterling more than your average Briton and in return receive a much worse service.

An honest, curious person would start investigating this to understand why.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to MercTech)

Post #: 14

RE: Question for the international members - 11/26/2015 6:29:29 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

The reason we should never try to teach a pig to sing is because it is a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 15

RE: Question for the international members - 11/27/2015 3:53:25 AM

blnymph

Posts: 1616
Joined: 11/13/2010
Status: offline

In Germany social insurances (including health insurance) date back far into the 19th century. The present basic social security system (with constant reforms) was introduced in the 1880s - as part of anti-socialism legislature. Maybe also interesting that whatever political system ruled since then the social security system was left intact.

Health insurance is mandatory, with a choice between statutory and private health insurances depending on income. The basic idea is a co-funding system split between employer and employee. In addition there are insurances for accidents and long term care. Statutory health insurance also covers family members. You can see more here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany

In Austria or Switzerland the system is different in many details but the basic outline is similar.

Partly the costs are lower, while the standards may be higher depending on ratio of MDs per population (I remember Austria had the highest word wide for years). Dental treatment is sometimes covered completely, partly, or not at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Austria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Switzerland

(in reply to thompsonx)

Post #: 16

RE: Question for the international members - 11/27/2015 4:37:36 AM

freedomdwarf1

Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

U.S. Citizen working in Ontario.

In theory the Canadian health care system sounds wonderful. But, what do you do when every primary care provider withing 200 kilometers says, "we are quota full of patients, sorry"

Dunno. But in England not only do you have access to any GP practice, you have a choice.

Your ideological standpoint is playing tricks with your brain. It's essentially forcing you down a path where you believe, without evidence, that any public system must be inefficient in some way, such as "full quotas" and the like.

Don't believe it, mate.

The United States is ranked bottom of the industrialised nations for a very good reason.

You spend more than others for a service well below standard.

You've led yourselves down a path where you believe that private enterprise is the holy grail and just simply must be the optimum position.

Except on average you pay 3,500 of the Queen's Sterling more than your average Briton and in return receive a much worse service.

An honest, curious person would start investigating this to understand why.

Good post NG.

There's a lot to be said for socialized healthcare.
The cost (of lack of it) to the patient is one good thing.
The idea of co-pay/co-funding is available for those that earn enough to afford it - that's another option in addition to the social healthcare system.
The UK system covers almost everything - including existing and hereditary conditions.
No money is needed to get healthcare and prescription charges are cheaper than the US for those that have to pay for them.
The waiting isn't as bad as I've seen others point fingers at.

Some snippets from Wiki:
Healthcare in the United Kingdom is a devolved matter, meaning England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales each have their own systems of publicly funded healthcare. A variety of differences exist between these systems, as a result of each region having different policies and priorities. However, each country provides public healthcare to all UK permanent residents that is free at the point of need, being paid for from general taxation. In addition, each also has a private healthcare sector which is considerably smaller than its public equivalent.

The most recent comparison from the World Health Organization is now significantly out of date: in 2000, it ranked the provision of healthcare in the United Kingdom as fifteenth best in Europe and eighteenth in the world. In their 2014 edition, the Commonwealth Fund's Mirror, Mirror on the Wall report, which ranks the top eleven first world healthcare systems, placed the United Kingdom as first overall taking first place in the following categories: Quality of Care (i.e. effective, safe, coordinated, & patient-oriented subcategories), Access to care, Efficiency, & Equity. The UK system had placed 2nd just four years previous in the 2010 report. The UK's palliative care has been ranked as the best in the world "due to comprehensive national policies, the extensive integration of palliative care into the National Health Service, a strong hospice movement, and deep community engagement on the issue.". On the other hand, in 2005-09 cancer survival rates lagged 10 years behind the rest of Europe, although survival rates continue to increase.

In 2011 public expenditure on healthcare was around 7.8 per cent of the United Kingdom's gross domestic product, which was 1.1% above the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average and about 1.4% above the average of the European Union. The total spending of GDP on healthcare, including private, in the UK is 9.4%, considerably less than comparable economies such as France (11.6%), Germany (11.3%), Netherlands (11.9%), Canada (11.2%) and the USA (17.7%).

There are some shortfalls as in any system, but on balance, I'd take any social healthcare system over private enterprise any day.

_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

George Orwell, 1903-1950

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 17

RE: Question for the international members - 11/27/2015 4:57:49 AM

Greta75

Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline

In my country, private health insurance is good enough. And it's cheaper than Obama care.

So it cost me only about what? $600 per annum, for my age group, for single bedder ward, in any private hospital of my choice and everything is covered AS CHARGED! It means, I pay zero and everything is paid for. They bill the insurer direct and it's cashless hassle free experience for me. And all I need is one minor surgery. Like an appendix removal surgery could easily cost $18,000. So $600 bux! Great! Hell, even my private accident plan, I pay $120 per annum for it. I cut my leg, went to the most expensive private hospital, just to get a few stitches cost me $400 and just to come back to change dressing cost me $120 each time. So everything added up to about $1000+, and I pay only $120 per year, super happy. No queue or waiting in line, I was attended to immediately. If I didn't get this insurance and went to the government hospital to get stitch up, as it's filled with people going for their subsidized pricing, I could be waiting for 4 hours for my turn.

I don't know how our government make this happen, but they regulate insurance industry, they also regulate private medical pricing. Quite a few medical professionals in the private sector has been convicted and lost their practicing license for over-charging. The government has a recommended pricing list also for us consumers to look at to know if we are being over-charged. It's very easy for medical industry to be unscrupulous and overly inflate charges if the government does not step in and regulate. I think this is what is happening in the US and that's why obama care is so damn expensive, because if the medical industry is over-inflating their prices, then insurance will cost a bomb. I think Hillary herself is acknowledging the problem about why are medicine cheaper in Canada, and it should be the same price. That was one issue she brought up on tackling to improve Obama care premiums.

So then we reach a balance where private insurance is affordable, we can get the best care, the best doctors, the best everything. I don't understand why some people in my country refuse to buy private insurance, but our private insurance plans are cheap and good. And for that amount of money, you get the best care, no waiting time, just like express service, it's worth paying for.

Of course for some people, even such premiums is too much to be paying in their mentality and we got the government health insurance that covers only 60% in 6 bedder wards or more, and as employer contributes to this fund for this insurance, so it almost feels like free. But this means, waiting for ages for surgery, long queue. The care is as good, but the waiting time sucks.

Our prisons do not even give you a bed, you sleep on concrete floors, it's not meant to be paradise, so the whole idea is to make everybody not want to do anything to be in prison, to make prison as unattractive as possible. So generally, prisons is a damn uncomfortable and miserable place to be in.

< Message edited by Greta75 -- 11/27/2015 5:08:01 AM >

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)

Post #: 18

RE: Question for the international members - 11/27/2015 5:58:00 AM

bounty44

Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

The United States is ranked bottom of the industrialised nations for a very good reason.

bottom in terms of what?

quote:

You spend more than others for a service well below standard.

you really cant say stuff like this without providing not just evidence, but also evidence that takes into account different value systems.

quote:

You've led yourselves down a path where you believe that private enterprise is the holy grail and just simply must be the optimum position.

there is very little "private" about healthcare here. the majority of transactions are medicare, Medicaid and outside of that, the government has got its nose in the insurance companies business.

quote:

Except on average you pay 3,500 of the Queen's Sterling more than your average Briton and in return receive a much worse service.

again, evidence? and not so much from a cost perspective, but rather from a care one.

and then consider this (apart from that cost is not an indicator at all of quality):

quote:

What the NHS is good at is providing cost-efficient care. It spends $3,405 per person per annum, less than half America's outlay of $8,508. Alas, that does not mean the NHS is financially secure: a £2 billion ($3.4 billion) shortfall looms from 2015 and NHS England is struggling to implement £20 billion in savings. And some outcomes for serious conditions do not commend the English model, which does worse on serious cancer treatment than Canada, Australia and Sweden, according to data from the King’s Fund, a health-care think-tank based in London. American women have higher survival rates for breast cancer. Mortality rates following strokes also let down the English system.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/06/economist-explains-16

quote:

An honest, curious person would start investigating this to understand why.

I don't disagree but your post treated a very complex and many layered issue almost simplistically. so I would say the same in response to you, especially, as on the whole in general, the free market and competition provides the best services in the most efficient manor. why/how is (if it is) healthcare an exception to that general rule?

and none of that takes into account the doctor shortages that the UK (and here too in part thanks to obamacare) is facing.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 19

RE: Question for the international members - 11/27/2015 6:13:10 AM

bounty44

Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FelineRanger
...All I'm really looking for is a more balanced view of other places that seem to treat their citizens better than the U.S does.

I may be reading this too narrowly, but when I do, (since you used the word "citizens" and refer to the country as an entity, which to me given the context here, implies the government) the question arises as to why/how its the governments job to involve itself in healthcare, and why/how, in terms of "treat", its supposed to do anything other than leave you alone, with minimal interference, so you can be free to pursue a life according to your own makings?

(in reply to FelineRanger)

Post #: 20

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Question for the international members

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125