Health Care

Pugz

Ms. Malone
V.I.P.
#1
I've seen a report about twelve year old who died from a tooth ache because his family couldn't afford to have it removed.

I would like to know why such a large and prosperous country can't provide free health care for their people. I find it rather strange that a small country like Britain, which could fit into the US about a hundred times, can provide free health care for a large percentage of the people but the US can't or won't.

I know there is a form of free health care for those that can't afford health insurance but most dentists/doctors and maybe hospitals won't take it.
 

tipsycatlover

Registered Member
#2
You should look into Britian's health care as well as Canadas. It might be free when you can get it. In Britian medical care is already being rationed. Recently a man who broke his ankle couldn't get it set because he smoked. Medical care for people who smoke in Britian is not available at all, not even to set a broken bone. In Canada people are dying because they can't get care fast enough. They get on a waiting list for that free care and it's a long long list.

My partner has an abcessed tooth that's caused a raging infection throughout his body. He has two forms of safety net insurance, state, and federal Medicare. No one takes this insurance. No one. I have no idea what we're going to do. A tooth extraction is almost $1,000.00. Even if we had socialized medicine and single payer insurance doctors will excercise their freedom and not accept it. The state will be taking money without having to pay out anything.

Socialized medicine is a flim flam of the worst kind. I pity those in countries that have it. The people pay outrageous taxes to support that system, and get nothing for their money. Free health care isn't free at all. Nothing is free. Someone pays. You pay out of pocket, you pay insurance, or you pay in exhorbitant taxes. Don't be fooled because someone says "free" it never is.
 

Pugz

Ms. Malone
V.I.P.
#3
We pay for it through our taxes.

I would like to know where you got this information about this smoker who couldn't get care, i've never heard of it, the NHS provides all types of care no matter what the health background.
 

Pugz

Ms. Malone
V.I.P.
#5
Ok, ok with the new smoking ban on that doesn't surprise me, but he does have a point and the NHS is seriously lacking. But it still doesn't answer my question as to why the US doesn't have a form of NHS and why Bush refuses to have such a thing.
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
#6
I have a friend who lives in the UK and I asked her about what tipsy said. this was her response

we pay for free health care in taxes. the whole point of taxation is that it's social taxation. our tax contribution as a percentage is far lower than the US for financing military expenditure and it's far higher in terms of financing the NHS system (and the schools system and the pension system and social security). we choose as a country to spend our taxation in that way. America has chosen a different approach and that's based upon a misinterpretation of freedom. The US version is based around the premise that you're free to be rich if you want to be (but if you're not, you're fucked), but our freedom is much more socially oriented.

The Health Service - you can have anything done on the NHS - anything at all. There have been discussions about people who smoke and then getting a smoking related disease having treatment, but these have never, ever been implemented. They are discussed because we discuss pretty much everything. Any country that could implement such a system would be a country striving to define itself as a country built on self-interest, and we choose not to do that.

You can have anything you want on the NHS, and it's non-discriminatory. Sometimes there are long waiting lists, but not for essential medical care. Anyone with suspected cancer, for example, is seen within 3 days. I have regular free checks because my family has a history. The NHS costs us less at the point of delivery and in our contributions to it because there's no cunt making a profit on the back of it. When you have a privatised health care, taxation is still levied, but it's levied by the private company, not by the state, and it's necessarily higher because it has to make a profit.
(emphasis on the last sentence added by me)
 

tipsycatlover

Registered Member
#7
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/category/health/

Here is the link.

Here's another one that denies medical care to any "self-inflicted" illness.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article597145.ece

more
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/09/nice09.xml

Being old is self-inflicted

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=391478&in_page_id=1770

A routine search brings up pages and pages of incidences of denial of care in the UK.


Bush won't do such a thing because the American people will go into a total rage if he does! Do you imagine, do you even think that the majority of Americans want national health care? That's the reason why. Billy boy tried it early on through his wife with Hillarycare and got smashed for it. We still have some elected representatives, those representatives listen to those who elected them at least some of the time. For an elected representative, it's the fast track to unemployment.
 

Pugz

Ms. Malone
V.I.P.
#9
being one of the 47 million uninsured americans, i would love it.
Exactly, it's a chance for people to be 100% insured no matter what the accident/injury/illness, sure the taxes may be a little bit higher, but i'd pay an extra so many percent if it means i can have an operation and not worry about the bill.
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
#10
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/category/health/

Here is the link.

Here's another one that denies medical care to any "self-inflicted" illness.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article597145.ece

more
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/09/nice09.xml

Being old is self-inflicted

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=391478&in_page_id=1770

A routine search brings up pages and pages of incidences of denial of care in the UK.


Bush won't do such a thing because the American people will go into a total rage if he does! Do you imagine, do you even think that the majority of Americans want national health care? That's the reason why. Billy boy tried it early on through his wife with Hillarycare and got smashed for it. We still have some elected representatives, those representatives listen to those who elected them at least some of the time. For an elected representative, it's the fast track to unemployment.
I understand that the daily mail is a right wing publication that is very anti-NHS.

also in the article that Storm posted, I notice that there is no quote from the hospital that says they refuse to treat him. It's only taking the patient's word for it. All the hospital spokesperson says is that it will hinder his healing process.