• Go to page :
  • 1234 5
  • Text Only
cestmoi123 said:   So statistically valid polls are pointless, but unsourced anecdotes about handraising at Paul Krugman panels have validity? Got it.

A poll that doesn't measure what you're intending to measure is yes pointless. A number of people the size of a focus group asked the right question is yes worth something.

My example was of people who had experienced both the US and Canadian healthcare system because they were people who had lived in Canada at an event in the US.

Your poll is of people who have never experienced US healthcare so your poll is pointless because it doesn't capture the subject matter.

dshibb said:   You can manipulate data all you want to, but can you really tell me that after hearing one person who lived there tell you how badly it's run and hearing from another person that basically every other developed world socialized or private healthcare system is better that you would be jumping for joy to go there and use it yourself? Be reasonable!

So, again, I'm supposed to take two data points and let that triumph over a statistically significant sample of both opinions and outcomes? Seriously? You don't think for a moment that people who have chosen to move from the UK to the US might not represent an entirely unbiased population when it comes to comparing the two countries? First off, they're unlikely to be poor and unable to get health insurance in the US.

All this said, I'd definitely prefer Germany's system to that of the UK - I think Switzerland may have the best structure.

The simple facts remain:

1. The Brits are happier with the NHS than Americans are with the US system.
2. British health outcomes are better than those in the US (overall).
3. The NHS spends half of what the US system does.

Would I personally benefit from the NHS? Probably not, as I have a truly Cadillac health care plan. Would I rather be a very ill 90 year old on Medicare in the US or on the NHS in the UK? Probably the former, as the US doesn't have a rational approach to end of life care. Would I rather be a 40 year old gas station attendant making $17k a year in the US healthcare system or on NHS? Certainly, the latter. Generally, if we waved a magic wand and had the NHS deployed in the US, a significant portion of Americans wouldn't see an improvement. On average, however, Americans would see an improvement, and we'd spend a heck of a lot less money to get there.

dshibb said:   cestmoi123 said:   So statistically valid polls are pointless, but unsourced anecdotes about handraising at Paul Krugman panels have validity? Got it.

A poll that doesn't measure what you're intending to measure is yes pointless. A number of people the size of a focus group asked the right question is yes worth something.

My example was of people who had experienced both the US and Canadian healthcare system because they were people who had lived in Canada at an event in the US.

Your poll is of people who have never experienced US healthcare so your poll is pointless because it doesn't capture the subject matter.


Canadian expats living in the US aren't exactly a typical cross section of the population. They're likely to be professionals, employed, with excellent health care plans. Comparing THEIR experience of the US healthcare system with the average American's isn't at all valid.

In addition, regarding the anecdote you cite on Krugman and Canada (link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fexz8Ij-OBQ)
(a) there were a total of seven people raising their hands
(b) he didn't ask whether they preferred the US or Canada, he asked whether they had a terrible health care system, and most (apparently) said yes

So, your example doesn't even show what you claim it shows. Even if we ignore the fact that this is a tiny, unrepresentative group being "surveyed," the anecdote says nothing about their opinion about the relative merits of the US vs. Canadian systems. They could very well think the US system is even worse.

dshibb said:   I tend to prefer data that isolates specific ailments, treatment, and then outcomes because you remove a lot of the healthy vs. unhealthy lifestyle stuff and just look at treatment. So for example studies that compare survival rates after cancer diagnosis are pretty useful because you're actually measuring the healthcare system itself and not health and actions of the population.

Here's, I think, the fundamental disconnect - health care system quality is a combination of availability of care, and the quality of that care when you get it. I agree that, in general, the US is tops in the world in the latter category - there is nowhere I'd rather be a rich, sick person. That's not the only metric, however. By that metric, NYC and LA don't have particularly bad traffic, since you can take a helicopter and avoid it.

The evidence is conclusive: given the amount spent, the US system produces worse outcomes for the median citizen than those of many other countries, including Canada and the UK.

cestmoi123 said:   dshibb said:   You can manipulate data all you want to, but can you really tell me that after hearing one person who lived there tell you how badly it's run and hearing from another person that basically every other developed world socialized or private healthcare system is better that you would be jumping for joy to go there and use it yourself? Be reasonable!

So, again, I'm supposed to take two data points and let that triumph over a statistically significant sample of both opinions and outcomes? Seriously? You don't think for a moment that people who have chosen to move from the UK to the US might not represent an entirely unbiased population when it comes to comparing the two countries? First off, they're unlikely to be poor and unable to get health insurance in the US.

All this said, I'd definitely prefer Germany's system to that of the UK - I think Switzerland may have the best structure.

The simple facts remain:

1. The Brits are happier with the NHS than Americans are with the US system.
2. British health outcomes are better than those in the US (overall).
3. The NHS spends half of what the US system does.

Would I personally benefit from the NHS? Probably not, as I have a truly Cadillac health care plan. Would I rather be a very ill 90 year old on Medicare in the US or on the NHS in the UK? Probably the former, as the US doesn't have a rational approach to end of life care. Would I rather be a 40 year old gas station attendant making $17k a year in the US healthcare system or on NHS? Certainly, the latter. Generally, if we waved a magic wand and had the NHS deployed in the US, a significant portion of Americans wouldn't see an improvement. On average, however, Americans would see an improvement, and we'd spend a heck of a lot less money to get there.


It doesn't just have to be UK to US it can be both UK to US and US to UK as a collective group(i.e. those that have just experienced both healthcare systems).

Statistically significant of meaningless questions? Again get the right metrics here and we'll talk. You can talk all you want about how the polling data as a lot of people in it, but if you aren't gleaning valuable data from those people it's meaningless.

You would rather be on British NHS than US Medicaid? Are you kidding me? That is just a very naive thing to say.

And you're really showing naivete by saying that if NHS was implemented in the US Americans would receive an improvement on average. Without getting into the impossibility of trying to adopt that without still having our utilization rate during and afterward(and the screams from Americans if you attempted to bring our utilization rate down to British levels by force) which would mean that cost wouldn't fall at all... NHS on the whole is a terrible healthcare system. Across the board Americans would see a huge decrease in the quality of care they receive and they would want to guillotine the person dumb enough to suggest something so dumb after the fact.


By the way do I sound like I'm being unreasonable here? You apparently want to stay within political confines and that is your prerogative, but I'm trying to talk to you best I can outside of them. I don't get why find it necessary to defend British NHS when it's the absolute worst socialized healthcare system to try to defend. If you want to talk about socialized medicine it would probably be better to talk about something more sane like Germany.


And British health outcomes are not better than the US. Their life expectancy unadjusted by any metric designed to more closely look at medicine and not general health or behavior is higher than ours. If that is the data point you want to rely on you can be my guest, but that also doesn't make you right.

cestmoi123 said:   dshibb said:   cestmoi123 said:   So statistically valid polls are pointless, but unsourced anecdotes about handraising at Paul Krugman panels have validity? Got it.

A poll that doesn't measure what you're intending to measure is yes pointless. A number of people the size of a focus group asked the right question is yes worth something.

My example was of people who had experienced both the US and Canadian healthcare system because they were people who had lived in Canada at an event in the US.

Your poll is of people who have never experienced US healthcare so your poll is pointless because it doesn't capture the subject matter.


Canadian expats living in the US aren't exactly a typical cross section of the population. They're likely to be professionals, employed, with excellent health care plans. Comparing THEIR experience of the US healthcare system with the average American's isn't at all valid.

In addition, regarding the anecdote you cite on Krugman and Canada (link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fexz8Ij-OBQ)
(a) there were a total of seven people raising their hands
(b) he didn't ask whether they preferred the US or Canada, he asked whether they had a terrible health care system, and most (apparently) said yes

So, your example doesn't even show what you claim it shows. Even if we ignore the fact that this is a tiny, unrepresentative group being "surveyed," the anecdote says nothing about their opinion about the relative merits of the US vs. Canadian systems. They could very well think the US system is even worse.


Valid criticism! It had been a while since I'd seen it.

dshibb said:   You would rather be on British NHS than US Medicaid? Are you kidding me? That is just a very naive thing to say.

Why? I'm seriously asking the question, why? What evidence do you have that the quality of care experienced by a Medicaid patient in the US is lower than the average quality of care in the UK? You seem to think it's self-evident, explain why.

dshibb said:   And you're really showing naivete by saying that if NHS was implemented in the US Americans would receive an improvement on average. Without getting into the impossibility of trying to adopt that without still having our utilization rate during and afterward(and the screams from Americans if you attempted to bring our utilization rate down to British levels by force) which would mean that cost wouldn't fall at all... NHS on the whole is a terrible healthcare system. Across the board Americans would see a huge decrease in the quality of care they receive and they would want to guillotine the person dumb enough to suggest something so dumb after the fact.

I'm certainly not saying that implementing the NHS in the US is in any way feasible, nor optimal, even if it were. That said, again, WHY do you think it's so obvious that average health outcomes in the US would decline under the NHS (assuming comparable levels of funding)?


dshibb said:   By the way do I sound like I'm being unreasonable here? You apparently want to stay within political confines and that is your prerogative, but I'm trying to talk to you best I can outside of them. I don't get why find it necessary to defend British NHS when it's the absolute worst socialized healthcare system to try to defend. If you want to talk about socialized medicine it would probably be better to talk about something more sane like Germany.

Agreed that other systems would be preferable. I'm not trying to stay within any political confines at all, here. I'm simply looking at what the data tells us, without preconceived notions of what does and doesn't work better, and what it costs. As I said earlier, I think a system like Switzerland's would probably make the most sense for the US (universal insurance, but not single payer or single provider).

cestmoi123 said:   dshibb said:   I tend to prefer data that isolates specific ailments, treatment, and then outcomes because you remove a lot of the healthy vs. unhealthy lifestyle stuff and just look at treatment. So for example studies that compare survival rates after cancer diagnosis are pretty useful because you're actually measuring the healthcare system itself and not health and actions of the population.

Here's, I think, the fundamental disconnect - health care system quality is a combination of availability of care, and the quality of that care when you get it. I agree that, in general, the US is tops in the world in the latter category - there is nowhere I'd rather be a rich, sick person. That's not the only metric, however. By that metric, NYC and LA don't have particularly bad traffic, since you can take a helicopter and avoid it.

The evidence is conclusive: given the amount spent, the US system produces worse outcomes for the median citizen than those of many other countries, including Canada and the UK.


But what you're saying is just flat wrong! Availability of care is not an issue in the US. It's the cost of healthcare that is a problem and specifically as you're alluding to(but incorrectly identifying) the cost of healthcare for an uninsured person after treatment that is a problem. But availability is and never was much of a real issue in the US(and in a lot of ways it's always been better in the US than in most socialized healthcare systems in the world because in those countries they either gatekeeper or fail to appropriate for things necessary for certain rare treatments).

Actually the only people that really had an issue with true availability of healthcare in the US were those that signed up for the old HMO plans back 20+ years ago. Those plans functioned much like a national healthcare system does where your primary physician acted as a gatekeeper for various treatments/specialists/etc. and where the budget available to that HMO network was a much bigger determinant in whether or not they granted you the ability to seek that treatment. Americans squealed and stop buying as they were constituted at that time(since HMO plans have changed considerably because people didn't want managed care which is what a nationalized healthcare system is).

dshibb said:   And British health outcomes are not better than the US. Their life expectancy unadjusted by any metric designed to more closely look at medicine and not general health or behavior is higher than ours. If that is the data point you want to rely on you can be my guest, but that also doesn't make you right.

I'd look at average and median Quality-Adjusted Life Expectancy, also adjusted for non-health related mortality (accidents, murder, etc.) as my outcomes metric.

dshibb said:   But what you're saying is just flat wrong! Availability of care is not an issue in the US. It's the cost of healthcare that is a problem and specifically as you're alluding to(but incorrectly identifying) the cost of healthcare for an uninsured person after treatment that is a problem. But availability is and never was much of a real issue in the US(and in a lot of ways it's always been better in the US than in most socialized healthcare systems in the world because in those countries they either gatekeeper or fail to appropriate for things necessary for certain rare treatments).

Actually the only people that really had an issue with true availability of healthcare in the US were those that signed up for the old HMO plans back 20+ years ago. Those plans functioned much like a national healthcare system does where your primary physician acted as a gatekeeper for various treatments/specialists/etc. and where the budget available to that HMO network was a much bigger determinant in whether or not they granted you the ability to seek that treatment. Americans squealed and stop buying as they were constituted at that time(since HMO plans have changed considerably because people didn't want managed care which is what a nationalized healthcare system is).


This is internally inconsistent. The complaint about HMOs was that people couldn't get the quantity of non-emergency care that they desired, under the plan for which they were paying. That's exactly the problem the uninsured face in the US now. If you're willing to spend out of pocket, neither being uninsured, nor the HMO, was a limitation. If it's emergency care, then you get it whether or not you have or had insurance.

Again, looking at the traffic example, it doesn't matter to me whether helicopter flights cost $10,000 each, or the FAA bans helicopters from flying from my house to my office - in both cases, they're effectively unavailable to me.

cestmoi123 said:   
Why? I'm seriously asking the question, why? What evidence do you have that the quality of care experienced by a Medicaid patient in the US is lower(you mean higher?) than the average quality of care in the UK? You seem to think it's self-evident, explain why.


I'm certainly not saying that implementing the NHS in the US is in any way feasible, nor optimal, even if it were. That said, again, WHY do you think it's so obvious that average health outcomes in the US would decline under the NHS (assuming comparable levels of funding)?


Because I occasionally watch British news, British parliament, have met numerous people from Britain, have been to Britain, I've had relatives who have studied abroad in Britain, etc. I've pieced together enough information over the years to be able to feel very, very comfortable putting my creditability on the line in stating that it's a $hit hole of a system. If I really didn't know I would keep my mouth shut as would have Nantucket. I guess an analogy is in order. When you finally have kids and you send them off to school how does everybody know what teacher to root for getting in a particular grade? Do they get a bunch of statistics in front of them and then make their determination off of that? No, right! They probably wouldn't even know what data mattered. Instead what do they do? They ask the parents who had their kids go through in previous years and then you notice that every parent you talk to says "You want Ms. Johnson she's amazing", right? They're all in unison because they all went through it and talked with the other parents that had different teachers.

It's basically the same thing here. I could provide you data and statistics, but you will always get the feeling and the notion that they're incomplete because no data set that I gave you could encapsulate an entire healthcare system. I could give you the articles from the UK newspapers, but you would say they're selective. I could give you the stories of average people that have experienced it and you would say they're anecdotal. But at the end of the day deep down you're probably just asking yourself if I or Nantucket are bull$hitting you. Thing like, "Well what motive do they have to say good things about a socialized healthcare system like Germany and terrible things about British NHS?" and "Do they seem reasonable or come off as people that know what they're talking about?" as you're primary determination because of a lack of really other options. Or you can just correctly point out that nobody including myself can prove one system to be better than another that easily, slap a question mark to every system in the world, and then never think about it again. I mean what within reason would actually speak to you? You want me to spend the next 500 hours to track down everything I've ever read, watched, heard, etc. on British NHS and provide it to you in one giant post?

Also, I should point out that here in the US we do have one healthcare system that operates a bit like British NHS and that is the VA and it's widely acknowledged as the worst sub healthcare system in the US. There have just been reported more 'appalling scandals' from the VA in the last few weeks which is pretty much par for the course when it comes to the VA. If you actually said that you would rather be in the VA system than on Medicaid I would laugh at you.

Lastly, in the US you're not a 'Medicaid patient'(you can be a patient of the VA, but you can't be a patient of Medicaid). You are a hospital patient just like everybody else and Medicaid pays the bill. To imply that a person on Medicaid gets different treatment then someone on private insurance is to show a bit of a misunderstanding of how our healthcare system works. The only big exception that I know of to that is long term care which is not really apart of our main healthcare system(since a lot of it is non medicine). If you're on Medicaid and at a nursing home it's going to be a cheap nursing home. There are better nursing homes if you pay more out of pocket or through LTC insurance. That makes sense though since it's a place you live.

cestmoi123 said:   dshibb said:   But what you're saying is just flat wrong! Availability of care is not an issue in the US. It's the cost of healthcare that is a problem and specifically as you're alluding to(but incorrectly identifying) the cost of healthcare for an uninsured person after treatment that is a problem. But availability is and never was much of a real issue in the US(and in a lot of ways it's always been better in the US than in most socialized healthcare systems in the world because in those countries they either gatekeeper or fail to appropriate for things necessary for certain rare treatments).

Actually the only people that really had an issue with true availability of healthcare in the US were those that signed up for the old HMO plans back 20+ years ago. Those plans functioned much like a national healthcare system does where your primary physician acted as a gatekeeper for various treatments/specialists/etc. and where the budget available to that HMO network was a much bigger determinant in whether or not they granted you the ability to seek that treatment. Americans squealed and stop buying as they were constituted at that time(since HMO plans have changed considerably because people didn't want managed care which is what a nationalized healthcare system is).


This is internally inconsistent. The complaint about HMOs was that people couldn't get the quantity of non-emergency care that they desired, under the plan for which they were paying. That's exactly the problem the uninsured face in the US now. If you're willing to spend out of pocket, neither being uninsured, nor the HMO, was a limitation. If it's emergency care, then you get it whether or not you have or had insurance.

Again, looking at the traffic example, it doesn't matter to me whether helicopter flights cost $10,000 each, or the FAA bans helicopters from flying from my house to my office - in both cases, they're effectively unavailable to me.


Bold: True I'll give you that!

You're traffic example is not accurate. In order to take the helicopter you have to pay them up front. In order to take $10k of healthcare they have to give it to you and then you get billed and then either pay it back in the future or default. Availability was never an issue only the cost after the fact was which uninsured people scream about in their medical bills and insured people scream about when their premiums go up. This distinction is important as it always has been a cost issue, but politicians kept on perpetrating this myth that the issue was that people weren't able to get treated which was false. They then proposed solutions that didn't actually deal with the problem that everybody actually cared about which was cost.

Rate my plan:

at your birth, we predict your future health, based on both genetic testing and family history of disease. based on these findings, you're put on one of 5 tracks:

Track A (approx. 10%): exceptionally lower-than-avg. risk of disease, free health insurance ($6M lifetime cap, high-deductible for promotion of healthy lifestyles), cash incentives for marrying a Track-A person, higher cash incentives for agreeing to euthanize Track-B or worse offspring, euthanized once $6M cap is reached

Track B (approx. 5%): significantly lower-than-avg. risk of disease, mandatory, low-cost health insurance ($4M lifetime cap, high-deductible), cash incentives for marrying a Track-A person, higher cash incentives for agreeing to euthanize Track-C offspring, $4M lifetime cap, high-deductible), euthanized once $4M cap is reached

Track C (approx. 70%): average risk of disease, mandatory, moderate-cost health insurance ($2M lifetime cap, high-deductible), imprisoned for obesity (at obese person's expense, until physically fit enough for a return to society; multiple imprisonments for obesity result in a death sentence), cash incentives for marrying a Track-A person, higher cash incentives for agreeing to euthanize Track-C offspring, euthanized once $2M cap is reached

Track D (approx. 5%): high risk of disease, some immediately euthanized, some used exclusively for medical experiments

Track F (approx. 10%): extreme risk of disease, most immediately euthanized, a few used exclusively for medical experiments

Didn't they change the law in 2010 to cover people until their 27th birthday on their parents insurance policy?

Your parents could add your brother to their policy as a dependent with a qualifying event.

Maybe?

cestmoi123 said:   stanolshefski said:   cestmoi123 said:   (Unsourced) anecdotes about Paul Krugman panels aside, this is demonstrably untrue. It's just false. According to this poll, 91% of Canadians prefer their system to the US system. This poll has 82% of Canadians preferring their system to the US, with only 8% preferring the US system.

Polls like that are pointless. Most Canadians have no experience with the American, British, French or any other system. The same goes with Americans, British and French and experience with other systems.


So statistically valid polls are pointless, but unsourced anecdotes about handraising at Paul Krugman panels have validity? Got it.


The poll asks the wrong people the question. It's flawed because of sample bias -- for the purpose that you are using it.

dshibb said:   
Lastly, in the US you're not a 'Medicaid patient'(you can be a patient of the VA, but you can't be a patient of Medicaid). You are a hospital patient just like everybody else and Medicaid pays the bill. To imply that a person on Medicaid gets different treatment then someone on private insurance is to show a bit of a misunderstanding of how our healthcare system works. The only big exception that I know of to that is long term care which is not really apart of our main healthcare system(since a lot of it is non medicine). If you're on Medicaid and at a nursing home it's going to be a cheap nursing home. There are better nursing homes if you pay more out of pocket or through LTC insurance. That makes sense though since it's a place you live.


This is unequivocally 100% false. I did consulting for 10 years and never was nor has been the case. Options for treatment are vastly different for medicaid patients than that of private and/or Medicare.

mikef07 said:   dshibb said:   
Lastly, in the US you're not a 'Medicaid patient'(you can be a patient of the VA, but you can't be a patient of Medicaid). You are a hospital patient just like everybody else and Medicaid pays the bill. To imply that a person on Medicaid gets different treatment then someone on private insurance is to show a bit of a misunderstanding of how our healthcare system works. The only big exception that I know of to that is long term care which is not really apart of our main healthcare system(since a lot of it is non medicine). If you're on Medicaid and at a nursing home it's going to be a cheap nursing home. There are better nursing homes if you pay more out of pocket or through LTC insurance. That makes sense though since it's a place you live.


This is unequivocally 100% false. I did consulting for 10 years and never was nor has been the case. Options for treatment are vastly different for medicaid patients than that of private and/or Medicare.


Mike, you misinterpreted my syntax. I wasn't referring to treatment options, but once an option is selected the treatment itself.

My point was that you're treated at the same hospital and by the same staff as those that are paying with private insurance. There is no such thing as a Medicaid hospital. There is such thing as a VA hospital.

You're pointing out that Medicaid bureaucrats have restricted treatment options because they don't want to pay for a lot of things. I agree completely and it's great example of government provided insurance restricting quality and quantity to keep costs down just like all of the other socialized systems. **But what I was pointing out is that if a patient on Medicaid is going to get ABC procedure and a privately insured patient selects ABC procedure they're both going to get the exact same thing, provided by the exact same doctors, etc.

In the VA you're walking into a VA hospita't l treated by VA doctors and nurses, treated on VA beds, given VA approved treatments, and subject to staffing of VA employment hours(i.e. you get even $hittier treatment after business hours).

dshibb said:   cestmoi123 said:   dshibb said:   Regardless of what you think about socialized medicine or private healthcare we should all admit(because it's well documented) that British National Health Service is the absolute worst healthcare system in the developed world. I would gladly go to many African countries for treatment before I would step foot in the UK for healthcare.

They are a $hithole and I want to laugh and cry whenever I hear someone dumb enough to say that British NHS is a model to follow.


I'd love to see your documentation about the NHS being the worst healthcare system in the developed world. Most studies rank it as, certainly imperfect, but overall reasonably effective (at least midrange in the developed world). See, for example: here or here.

Also, remember that they spend less than half as much on healthcare per capita as the US. So, think of it this way: if the NHS's budget were doubled, what would that do to the quality of care? By the same token, if health care spending in the current US system were halved, what would THAT do to the quality of care in the US.

One thing the NHS does VERY well is deal honestly with the tradeoffs in health care cost vs. benefit, via their QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Year) system. Yes, it means rationing (at least of public spending - individuals are free to spend whatever they want), but every system needs to have some sort of rationing, and being open and explicit about it (by saying "treatment X costs $100,000, but only extends life by 3 months on average, and we're not going to spend that, when treatment Y only costs $1000 and increases life by 2 months on average").


You haven't dealt with many people who have lived in Britain have you?


I lived in London for 3 years. I have personal, first hand experience of the both our system and the NHS. I have a different opinion to you - may it be valid?

Given the choice between the NHS (faults and all) and the $10,000 (and rising) I pay an insurance company each year to cover my healthy family, I'll take the NHS. I don't need valet parking and million dollar lobby artwork at the hospital (my local hospital has both). I need effective, cost *effective*, healthcare as required. The NHS is a baseline, you can, and many Brits do, upgrade to a Cadillac of a health care plan if you want, but the baseline is there for the benefit of all.

The British live longer, which seems odd if the NHS is a "$hithole" that is killing them. In my personal experience that is not the case. This may differ from distributed talking points.

ganda said:   I lived in London for 3 years. I have personal, first hand experience of the both our system and the NHS. I have a different opinion to you - may it be valid?

Given the choice between the NHS (faults and all) and the $10,000 (and rising) I pay an insurance company each year to cover my healthy family, I'll take the NHS. I don't need valet parking and million dollar lobby artwork at the hospital (my local hospital has both). I need effective, cost *effective*, healthcare as required. The NHS is a baseline, you can, and many Brits do, upgrade to a Cadillac of a health care plan if you want, but the baseline is there for the benefit of all.

The British live longer, which seems odd if the NHS is a "$hithole" that is killing them. In my personal experience that is not the case. This may differ from distributed talking points.


You're in the way minority of people I've talked to there and here that have first hand experience of British NHS and have positive things to say about treatment there. So of course your opinion is valid, but so were the many, many others I've spoken with.

Again the British don't live longer if you just take out car crashes in the US and UK and violent crime in the US and UK(i.e. a category of death referred to as external--i.e. the ones where an event caused your death not illness) and that is still doesn't take into account that the British live healthier lives which if you then adjusted for that the US would blow the UK completely out of the water.

May I ask what your experiences were like at your hospital in London? I'm always interested in hearing more personal details. What kinds of health issues did you and your family experience when you were there, and what can you tell us about the treatment and issues you dealt with upon physically going to the hospital.

Also, your complaint with the US system(cost) is obviously a very valid one which has always been the big elephant in the room. The US given it's utilization rate has always been a system almost designed to eat money. If you were to compare the differences of what you paid in tax in the US vs. UK to that premium bill A) What would you say then? and B) What if that number was the same which one would you take?


Lastly, I don't read talking points(nor what I've said above fit any category of peoples typical talking points) so I don't know why you felt the desire to go there.

If only this thread was about someones brother diagnosed with cancer and people trying to help.

saladdin said:   If only this thread was about someones brother diagnosed with cancer and people trying to help.
Good point. From this point on, we really need to stay on topic.

try http://www.cancercare.org/financial.
maybe they can, at least, offer some advice on where to turn.

NantucketSunrise said:   russ0519 said:   Also as far as being part of a bigger pool when buying insurance when you're self employed, maybe look at https://www.freelancersunion.org/benefits/plans/freelancers-insu...

As talked about many times in past years on Finance forum threads about how self-employed people have nearly NO options for group health insurance,
even though many people who are not self-employed presume that they do,

You don't know what you are talking about. Guarantee issue group business health insurance is available in all 50 states. In 13 states the size of the group can be one person, in the other 37 states the business has to have 2 employees. It is not difficult for a self-employed person to hire someone, perhaps their wife, to make a two person company. (BTW, I am self-employed)

BTW, as I mentioned, the OP since he is self-employed he can obtain business health insurance.

BradMajors said:   NantucketSunrise said:   russ0519 said:   Also as far as being part of a bigger pool when buying insurance when you're self employed, maybe look at https://www.freelancersunion.org/benefits/plans/freelancers-insu...

As talked about many times in past years on Finance forum threads about how self-employed people have nearly NO options for group health insurance,
even though many people who are not self-employed presume that they do,

You don't know what you are talking about. Guarantee issue group business health insurance is available in all 50 states. In 13 states the size of the group can be one person, in the other 37 states the business has to have 2 employees. It is not difficult for a self-employed person to hire someone, perhaps their wife, to make a two person company. (BTW, I am self-employed)

BTW, as I mentioned, the OP since he is self-employed he can obtain business health insurance.



BradMajors, I was not responding to any comment that you made or any belief that you hold.

I responded to the incorrect statement made by Russ0519, who said that the cancer sufferer in question should look into *freelancers'* health insurance.

As to your statement regarding how it's not difficult for an individual freelancer to get business health insurance:
-Not every self-employed person sets themselves up as a business entity. Actually, many choose not to.
-Not every self-employed person who goes to the trouble of setting themselves up as a business entity finds it easy to hire another person. I, for example, do not have a wife, and as a woman, am not likely to.

It's quite far-reaching to say that I don't know what I am talking about. I am an intelligent, thoughtful person who has actually looked into freelancer's insurance, as can be seen in several FW threads from past years. I do not claim to know anything about how businesses with employees can obtain health insurance, so to criticize me for not speaking to that topic is quite silly.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014