The difference between single payer and state run is an important distinction, especially in the US, where fears of "socialism" are on the table. Single Payer would still allow private companies to continue operating as they were, with the notable exception the fact that they would be dealing with the government instead of directly with consumers.
Healthcare
- Thread starter RDCR07
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
The difference between single payer and state run is an important distinction, especially in the US, where fears of "socialism" are on the table. Single Payer would still allow private companies to continue operating as they were, with the notable exception the fact that they would be dealing with the government instead of directly with consumers.
Yes I think that would make the most sense to start with and to distinguish single-payer from state run which is important.
How profitable are private insurers in the UK?
I don't think medical billing would change a lot. Main difference it would be one payer instead of hundreds of insurance companies to deal with.
One thing worth noting is it would be a two tier system Many people would still have secondary insurance and get preferential treatment,
I just checked BUPA against United Healthcare. They both have net income of around 7%, so similar to the US. Private healthcare has been growing in the UK as well.
They would have to pay for that sort of thing though wouldn't they. A vast majority of ordinary citizens would just be on the standard plan where they show their Social Security Card and get whatever treatment they want. I believe Canada still have a fairly private Dental system, so that would be out of pocket as well by way of private insurers.
There should always be a private option. I don't think anybody in the US has really argued differently.
Believe it or not there are private options in the NHS unless things have changed. When I was admitted with a collapsed lung they put me on a communal ward with eleven other people. It was a chest unit full of old guys making disgusting noises all day/night. I was not happy so the Mrs puled a few strings and I ended up on a nice private ward with my own ensuite room, Sky TV, any food I wanted and double the nursing staff.
As someone who has just come in to the NHS from India where there is a big private base I have been really surprised by how the NHS works. In India because the majority of the population is still poor so they can't afford private treatment and because the population is so high and spending on healthcare is minimal so even though the majority of middle/upper class goes to private hospitals the poor get awful treatment in government hospitals. In the UK there is massive spending on the NHS( contrary to belief) but because even the middle/upper class are using it so resources again fall short. I think India is actually better for people who make a decent amount of money because Doctors/hospitals are available easily at little cost
I was in and out in 20 minutes.......literally said feck this to the MRs when I heard all the throat clearing and fartingHealthcare is massively expensive, and the burdens on it have grown years on year my entire life. The NHS does have a good budget but it is also underfunded. Keeping up with the demand and medical advancements is a strain and real infrastructure like new facilities and equipment is a major issue.
Still a step up from the ill informed propaganda thread though
Yeah I haven't been in there since you took that one over.
A forum or discussion with a bunch of people in total agreement is not much fun. I am actually fairly bipartisan on most subjects.
Anecdotally as a Canadian/US citizen, who lives an active lifestyle who has made frequent trips to the hospital and ER for broken bones and torn ligaments, the care I got in Canada was both faster, and of a higher quality than the care I've gotten in the US.
I have never experienced Canadian healthcare. I definitely have more exposure to ER in the US and UK than most people though. My wife worked her entire NHS career in A&E, and first few years in the US in ER.
Well we'll all just have to wait till you have so we can get the true story on it.
I got attacked for three pages for saying the majority of Americans are happy with the healthcare system. Posted this four times now and crickets:
Overall Satisfaction with US Healthcare was 65% in 2016:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/195605/americans-satisfaction-healthcare-system-edges-down.aspx
Overall satisfaction in the NHS was 63% in 2016
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/public-satisfaction-nhs-2016
So I guess my opinion based on anecdotes was actually spot on, fancy that.
Difference between me and some posters is I stay away from things I don't really know about. You want catch me in the Brexit thread or threads about other countries in general.
Last edited:
people often don't realize how they are getting screwed. incumbents are routinely reelected despite single digit approval ratings for congress as a whole.
the simple fact is that americans pay more for worse health outcomes than similar countries. your constant obfuscating of that fact with anecdotes about how you are doing fine and your neighbors and social circle is doing fine doesn't change the fact that tens of thousands of people are dying every year in the richest country in the world due to lack of care. no one wants to see your fecking tax return.
the simple fact is that americans pay more for worse health outcomes than similar countries. your constant obfuscating of that fact with anecdotes about how you are doing fine and your neighbors and social circle is doing fine doesn't change the fact that tens of thousands of people are dying every year in the richest country in the world due to lack of care. no one wants to see your fecking tax return.
the system works!
The overall satisfaction with US healthcare bit is likely because they haven't experienced viable alternatives. If you asked people whether they would like a system where they pay no health insurance and simply use their social security cards to walk into any hospital or clinic to get treated, then that number would likely be pretty high as well. It's all a matter of how the question is framed and the context of choices given to the person being polled.
Yes I am well aware on how wildly unreliable single question polls are. Only really posting that because I was ridiculed for three pages because I said the majority of Americans are happy with healthcare. Happens my observations and gut feelings were spot on.
I am definitely in favor of changing the system in the US.
I think most people in this thread are for changing the system, its just a matter of how viable different levels of change are in this political climate. What is ominous for single payer at the moment, is I am not seeing any prominent Dems championing it. Some say they are for it, but they don't spend much time promoting it. I suspect the reason for this is the Dems as a party still haven't sorted out what their official party platform is. Some are simply in favor of mending the ACA by tightening up the individual mandate penalties, while others are for single payer. The Dems really need to sort this out before the next Presidential cycle.
Best starting with what problem you are trying to solve and work out from there. The bulk of the issues in the system are around the uninsured. That group are the ones that are most likely to suffer from a health standpoint and they are the most likely to get into serious financial difficulties. The 30% covered by Medicaid/Medicare and bulk of the insured are OK for now. Get the uninsured on Medicaid, and then open up the system to employers as an option to insurance.
People in the US would never accept the level of taxation it takes to provide free healthcare and free education. It is a no go from the start.
Not that you would be that much worse off when all is said and done and you've got all the insurances and have sent the kids to college, but it is more the principle.
Not that you would be that much worse off when all is said and done and you've got all the insurances and have sent the kids to college, but it is more the principle.
That's definitely a hurdle, especially since how it would get paid for is still a bit murky.
Done properly it can be sold to the electorate. There is ample money in the US healthcare system to provide first rate care for every American. Instead of paying $2,000-$6,000 a year in premiums you would simply pay the money into Medicaid instead. The company would divert their contributions to Medicaid instead of an insurance company. The fact that 20-25% of healthcare costs could be eliminated means the actually cost to most people should remain the same or be less than what they pay now. Let's say they just add 4-5% to Medicaid contributions from the employee, and 9% from the employer. Even person earning $100,000 would be no worse off if they had no insurance premium, copays and deductibles. I/we personally would end up paying more but that is fine if every man, woman and child in teh US get healthcare free at source.
*Just example numbers above
You’d be surprised how many times I’ve been asked in the last couple of years by teenagers, “wait, why the heck don’t we have that then?” all the while in the heart of GOP territory.
Just think the current system is too engrained in people's perception by now in the US. It would be like us Norwegians being asked to switch over to a US style healthcare system basically. Any politician suggesting it would probably be labeled a communist.
Ah, things can change. We used to have a system where the doctor made house calls and you paid him directly as you could, but that changed.
Still can't get over giving my little sister $400 for a urine sample test and another $1200 for something I can't remember what...I think an x-ray.
Don't know how you people do it?
Are Americans not dying at home cause they can't afford to see a doctor.
I think my little sister had to pay to even see one?
Don't know how you people do it?
Are Americans not dying at home cause they can't afford to see a doctor.
I think my little sister had to pay to even see one?
Last edited:
They’re dying at home because they can’t afford the hospital and/or medicine anymore, yes.
My wife regularly comes home pissed at the system because of this.
There is a private option in the UK as well.
I got huge increases as well in New Jersey and they take about 10% of the salary on my school district
If you have insurance next time you pick up medicine see the prices on the bottles, i used to take nexium and i was paying $20 for 90 days and if i had no insurance was like $600 -don’t remember the exact numbers
I'd go further than that.
I love the Norwegian system, despite the unlucky experiences I've had I know I'd be dead in a lot of other systems.