The difference between the USA and most other nations healthcare is healthcare began in the time following World War 2. After World War 2 many nations were welcoming home their veterans, part of that was to offer healthcare to the veterans, then they decided to extend that coverage to their dependents as these veterans started to get married, settle down and have children.

 

That certainly wasn't the case in the UK whre the NHS was available to everyone since it first began. The Beveridge Report published in 1942 in the depths of the war said "Medical treatment covering all requirements will be provided for all citizens by a national health service." Parliament passed an Act in 1946 setting up the NHS, which came into being in 1948. The most vociferious opponents were the doctors, especially the senior doctors - the consultants, The Minister of Health bought off the latter, famously saying "I stuffed their mouths with gold"

That certainly wasn't the case in the UK whre the NHS was available to everyone since it first began. The Beveridge Report published in 1942 in the depths of the war said "Medical treatment covering all requirements will be provided for all citizens by a national health service." Parliament passed an Act in 1946 setting up the NHS, which came into being in 1948. The most vociferious opponents were the doctors, especially the senior doctors - the consultants, The Minister of Health bought off the latter, famously saying "I stuffed their mouths with gold"

 

I won't dispute what you are saying as I was speaking in general terms. Yours is a response directly related to the UK and that is very cool. This does go back to my original point being that modern Healthcare is directly related to WW2 and for the UK to begin debating such a program during the war and pass it into law in 1946, launch it in 1948, only means that they got the head start over the rest of the Commonwealth.

 

The USA did take on the same initiative around the same time as other nations but it never developed in the USA, maybe due to reason's I mentioned already, but anyone, especially from the USA is more then welcome to contribute to why Healthcare never developed in the USA when the rest of the modern nations had developed it following World War 2.

 

As I mentioned already for the USA it is way too late. Following WW2 was when countries were developing government programs as they moved forward redeveloping after a World War. Today a program like Healthcare is next to impossible if you haven't done it already.

Most Americans absolutely detest taxes. There is also very little trust that the federal government won't screw up a program. Hospitals send out horribly inflated bills and doctors charge horrific fees. It is a self defeating system. I have very poor insurance so at age 62, I really need to have at least two major surgeries, but there is no chance until I qualify for Medicare and only then if I can find doctors that accept it. The very rich don't care and the very poor get care. The guy in between is screwed. By the way, the Republicans believe it is socialistic, not Communistic. There are major differences in the two philosophies. It all is brought about by the waste and graft exhibited by our wonderful corrupt House and Senate.

Most Americans absolutely detest taxes.

 

 

Most people detest taxes. Two inevitabilities of life are death and taxes, and of those taxes are worse because you don't have to die at the end of every financial year...

That all sounds great, but do you guys honestly think that some type of small country Swedish, New Zealand, or Canadian kind of of health system can be scaled up and made to work in the US, considering the size of the population and other obligations of the government, without adverse wait times, landscape changing increases in taxes or deficits, or significant cutbacks in other federal spending?

Why are you discussing health care on a flight sim forum? Isn't there some political forum that you can take this to?

Why are you discussing health care on a flight sim forum? Isn't there some political forum that you can take this to?

I would kindly point you to this post for your explanation:

http://forum.avsim.n...50#entry2500465

 

also see these outlining how not to break our ToS in this thread, and what would happen if it does go out of control:

http://forum.avsim.n...25#entry2500207

http://forum.avsim.n...50#entry2500387

Insurance is a joke...

 

Medical Providers Overcharge and Insurance underpays. This is most evident when you have to try and negotiate out of pocket payments after insurance rejects something. They will settle a $6000 insurance bill with you for $2000...

 

The issue is that when insurance doesn't pay the patient is left with that super inflated bloated bill. In my case I pay $100/mo and my company pays $300/mo. On top of that I have a $2000 in Network deductible and $4000 out of network deductible. I also have co-pays for Dr. Visits, specialist visits and medicine. Then when push came to shove and I had my spinal fusion in 2005 they rejected the procedure (Too experimental at the time despite being the standard now) and left me with a $251,000 bill. IF they had their way I would have needed TWO operations and the fusion would have been a bone from my own hip instead of modern titanium!!! I had to pay an attorney $50,000 to get them to pay their original half $125,000 and then the surgeon settled with me for an additional $25,000 because he knew I sued to get him the $125,000. So on top of my insurance it cost me $75,000 out of pocket, plus ~$40,000 in additional bills. The whole time my credit was dragged through the floor to the low 500's... If it wasn't for my job and income I would have had no choice but to declare bankruptcy like so many other Americans with and without insurance... Fortunately I worked twice as hard to physically recover, mentally recover and financially recover which is why I have no sympathy for anyone who feels they are entitled to anything...

 

THAT is the reality of insurance. It is a business, nothing more, they NEVER have the patient as their priority, only their own bottom line. In reality it is like a legalized criminal enterprise. Forget expanding coverage for everyone, fix what we have first. Otherwise it is like trying to fill a hole in the bottom of a bucket by pouring more and more water into it... It will always be a bottomless pit unless you fix it!

That all sounds great, but do you guys honestly think that some type of small country Swedish, New Zealand, or Canadian kind of of health system can be scaled up and made to work in the US, considering the size of the population and other obligations of the government, without adverse wait times, landscape changing increases in taxes or deficits, or significant cutbacks in other federal spending?

 

So who says it *has* to be administered at the Federal level. Why not consider a state funded/run arrangement?

 

Honestly I don't have a horse in this race (or a donkey or an elephant for that matter) but this issue highlights the problem I have with (any) party politics, it all comes down to ideology over reason. Instead of looking at an issue with a view to the greater good, the Blah party proposes doing A, the Meh party says it obviously won't work, calls the Blah party fools for proposing it, when obviously they should do B. Everyone puffs out their chests, shouts a lot and not an awful lot gets done.

 

I am, however, somewhat bemused to hear an American telling me I'm nuts because I think my country's social health care works. Then again, I've also heard some of his countrymen decrying the introduction of roundabouts for traffic control as "un-American and wrong" so... yes I think this is one of those rare occasions when the rolleyes smiley is appropriate.... :rolleyes:

 

 

Maybe what I should have said is "given that In the UK merely breathing a word of criticism of the NHS - or more particularly the doctors & nurses that work in it - could well get A POLITICIANlynched"

 

Ah now that on the other hand is an exceedingly fair comment.

 

Also I'd second the observation that, in the UK at least, urgent/high priority healthcare is first rate, it's the less urgent aspects that suffer from long waiting times, under-resourcing.

 

Dr V

That all sounds great, but do you guys honestly think that some type of small country Swedish, New Zealand, or Canadian kind of of health system can be scaled up and made to work in the US, considering the size of the population and other obligations of the government, without adverse wait times, landscape changing increases in taxes or deficits, or significant cutbacks in other federal spending?

 

Reality it the United States is 50 individual states. If Healthcare is to work in the USA then each individual state would be responsible to deliver Healthcare.

 

Each state in size ranges from 570,000 people to 38,000,000 people. So reality is that is like 50 individual countries not much different in size to countries like New Zealand, Sweden or Canada.

 

The Healthcare Act in Canada is a federal law that outlines how each province handles its own healthcare. In the USA the Federal Government would also need to pass a similar law, then each state handle the Healthcare individually.

 

This would mean the Healthcare you receive and funding, taxes etc would vary from state to state. Some would be better then others. This would also mean if you are a California Resident for example and are injured in Utah, then Utah would have to send the medical bill to the state of California.

 

Yes it would be a major undertaking and increase taxes. Reality is each US citizen pays about $2200 dollars per person, per year towards defense spending, in New Zealand we pay around $800 per person per year on defense. That right there is the main reason why the United States can't afford healthcare. They kind of dug themselves in a hole with defense contracts and a defense industry. Try cutting that and see the ripple effects.

There's a fair amount of misinformation in this thread. For one thing, if your income is low you can get Medicaid (insurance) from the state, free. It's not great, but it will cover treatment for any life-threatening condition. Even if you don't qualify for Medicaid, and you don't have private insurance, the emerency room must treat you--not just for emergencies, but even for the sniffles. Yes. they will send you a bill. If you don't pay, they'll pester you. If you can't pay, you can declare bankruptcy and get the debt discharged. A lot of low-income people who would qualify for Medicaid won't sign up because they don't want to bother with the paperwork. The hospitals press them to enrol, so they'll get paid, but they can't make them do it.

 

Our outcomes for people with serious medical conditions beat those of any other country, and we don't have to wait long for treatment. This is probably one of the main reasons the Mayo clinic sells insurance to Canadians for treatment in US hospitals.

 

Most of us have group medical insurance or, if we're over 65, Medicare (which is sort of like the Canadian system except that it covers practically any treatment, though that will have to change because there won't be enough money.)

<br />Our outcomes for people with serious medical conditions beat those of any other country, and we don't have to wait long for treatment. This is probably one of the main reasons the Mayo clinic sells insurance toanadians for treatment in US hospitals.<br /><br />

 

I would say that statement is not true, The reality is the quality of care is pretty much equal in the top 20 nations. USA doesn't rate very high (number 37 in the world):

 

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

 

Also the number of Canadians that travel to the USA for medical treatment is around 1% (Very low). Not even worth bringing up.

 

Yes the Mayo Clinic has contacts in Canada but that would be more to support US Expats living in Canada (who are not eligible for Canadian Care) then offering care to Canadians. Remember that 250,535 US Citizens live in Canada.

...

The Healthcare Act in Canada is a federal law that outlines how each province handles its own healthcare. In the USA the Federal Government would also need to pass a similar law, then each state handle the Healthcare individually.

 

This was basically ruled unConstitutional by the US Supreme Court earlier this year. The fe'dl

gov't cannot mandate Healthcare upon the States

 

The only way that could work with the States is if the Fed'l give gave the states the the money to pay for it. But even then a State could just opt out and refuse the money.

 

The only way such a system could be fully implemented in the US is via the Federal Gov't taking

on the complete cost of it (referred to as a Single Payer system).

 

This would mean the Healthcare you receive and funding, taxes etc would vary from state to state. Some would be better then others. This would also mean if you are a California Resident for example and are injured in Utah, then Utah would have to send the medical bill to the state of California

 

This wouldn't pass Constitutional muster either.

 

California would just refuse to pay it.

 

Yes it would be a major undertaking and increase taxes. Reality is each US citizen pays about $2200 dollars per person, per year towards defense spending, in New Zealand we pay around $800 per person per year on defense. That right there is the main reason why the United States can't afford healthcare. They kind of dug themselves in a hole with defense contracts and a defense industry. Try cutting that and see the ripple effects.

 

The problem is not the defense spending, its entitltements.

Entitlement programs like (Social security and Medicare) are already more than twice the defense budget. Add a comprehensive single payer NHS type system (another entitlement program) to it, its bound to go up significantly,probably triple what defense spending is.

 

Its much easier to cut Defense spending than it is entitlements.

The guy that posted about his insurance company getting a grossly inflated bill,Is the crux of the issue,"GREED".

It's all a big scam with the doctors,pharmaceuticals,medical equipment manufactors all in on it. Don't forget the lawyers too.

Any one that thinks the American political system is going to magically fix all of this is smoking crack,It's only going to be more status quo.

The guy that posted about his insurance company getting a grossly inflated bill,Is the crux of the issue,"GREED".

It's all a big scam with the doctors,pharmaceuticals,medical equipment manufactors all in on it. Don't forget the lawyers too.

Any one that thinks the American political system is going to magically fix all of this is smoking crack,It's only going to be more status quo.

Correct. And the best is insurance companies pay based on UCR's (look it up) so your Dr. bills $3,000, insurance says the UCR is $1,000 pays 80% of that $800 and then the Dr. sends you a bill saying you owe $2200....

 

Works great for the insurance company!