"I'm proud to be European in this matter and would be ashamed to be from a country that let people die because they simply cannot afford treatments"

Where do you draw the line?  Does the government (you/me) pay for someone's million dollar treatment?  Is 100,000 too much?  100,000 a month?  What?

It's the same as with an insurance company, you cover the expense of someone else's million dollar treatment with your fees even if you don't ever claim yourself. You just end up paying a lot less if the "company" providing the insurance is the government.
It sounds like people are prepared to pay more for a worse service as long as they can be assured 100% that they won't be helping anyone who doesn't deserve their help. No I'm not one for helping scroungers, but I don't think I'd take my anti-altruism to the point where I'd pay extra to guarantee someone else suffered.

A question. In USA if you have no money and you get hit by a car and have a broken leg/pelvis what happens at the moment. Is there any safety net ?

"I'm proud to be European in this matter and would be ashamed to be from a country that let people die because they simply cannot afford treatments"

Where do you draw the line?  Does the government (you/me) pay for someone's million dollar treatment?  Is 100,000 too much?  100,000 a month?  What?

Yes, the government (you/me) does pay for the million dollar treatment. In cases where my country hasn't the necessary treatment - latest technology or too expensive to have in the NHS due to rarity of cases - the patients may be sent to get treatment in another country that provides them, even private hospitals.

The state provide for the payment of treatment and supports the travels and I guess even the stay. It's obvious that this is made only exceptionally, but the fact is that we cover all specialties with modern technology and knowledge so, as I mentioned, only exceptional cases need to use it.

It's obvious that the government will not pay for vanity surgeries, but plastic surgeries, if considered reconstructive surgeries will be covered, from facial plastic surgeries to breast implants due to breast cancer.

But if you wish you can pay for your private insurance plan or go to private clinics and hospitals. No one forbids you from doing it. As long as you have the money. But if you don't, you won't be denied a fair treatment no mater how rich or poor you are.

One curious thing happened recently. A multi-millionaire, owner of big banks and business including one of the major private healthcare insurance companies got sick. Do you think he got committed in his luxurious private hospitals? Wrong! He was committed and treated in a public hospital. Why is that? Because he knows that it's where the best technology and doctors are and that he would be treated with fairness. Food for thought...

So government should just pay for everything for everyone.  OK. 

Has anyone been reading the financial news these days about Europe teetering on financial collapse?  Greeks riot because it's suggested they should work past their 50s.  The whole country is about to go bankrupt. 

That is an ENOURMOUS misinterpretation of the problem of Greece and other countries in Europe. It's not the Healthcare system that put these countries  in that situation.

It's corruption and terrible management (I would call it even criminal) of the resources.

If you have a country like Greece, where only a fraction of the population pays taxes, and everyone else evades it, while the government doesn't do anything to correct it, people retiring at young age like hairdressers retiring at age 55, because they are considered an hazardous profession , an hospital with 30 gardeners when it has only 3 tress  , official cars with 40 drives assigned to each  , a foundation meant to protect a lake that it's dry since the 1930's  , or a life pension for the single daughters of former public workers      among many other examples, it's obvious things will not work out well.

With management like this there's not a single State or private company, for that matter, in the world that can survive

It's not the sustainability of the system that is in question. What is in question in countries like Greece and Portugal is that horrendous managent of resources coupled with massive corruption and nepotism where family and friends are hired to work for the state when the state does not need , or afford, more people.

Yes true.  A right-wing Tory too.  I think that's a major point.  The desire to keep the NHS free crosses all party lines, all political persuasions, all walks of life.  I get the feeling that in the US it's a left vs right argument... a Capitalist vs 'Commie' position.  It just isn't like that here.

Many people in the UK who can afford private health insurance do have it, and we have plenty of private hospitals too.  In some cases people choose to pay because they prefer the private room of a private hospital to a multiple-bed ward in an NHS one; in other cases because they act with altruism in not wishing to take up a hospital bed from someone who needs free treatment more than they do.

And I've read about people in small companies, e.g. one-man person businesses, who buy private insurance so that they can arrange to have treatment at a time of minimal damage to their customers, or to give them time to book in 'help', whatever.
Similarly I've read of private companies getting insurance for their 'key' employees for the same reason.

"I'm proud to be European in this matter and would be ashamed to be from a country that let people die because they simply cannot afford treatments"

Where do you draw the line?  Does the government (you/me) pay for someone's million dollar treatment?  Is 100,000 too much?  100,000 a month?  What?

+1

There seems to be a misunderstanding on Obamacare.  It's not free. Everyone will have coverage only because they are mandated by law to pay for their own coverage. The "everyone claim" is driven by the fact that insurance companies can't turn anyone down for pre existing conditions so there's no reason left on the table to prevent you from purchasing insurance.

Quote from: XPTO on September 16, 2011, 05:05

Yes, the government (you/me) does pay for the million dollar treatment. In cases where my country hasn't the necessary treatment - latest technology or too expensive to have in the NHS due to rarity of cases - the patients may be sent to get treatment in another country that provides them, even private hospitals.

Come on, that's ridiculous.  Everyone is going to think they need the next best, or experimental, or cutting edge whatever it is, no matter what the cost.  Why should we foot a 100 million dollar bill for 100 people who may be going to die anyways two weeks later, when you can feed 10,000 people and shelter them?  There is not an endless money tree out there.  There's a minimum that should be met, and extreme work should come at a cost to the one who needs it.

You're grossly misinterpreting what I said. I said "necessary treatment", which means it's a "treatment" not a caprice, therefore a reasonable chance to keep that person healthy or alive. If there's no chance, or a very slim one, that a person will survive than that person will not get the treatment.

The way you're saying things it's like people went to the Healthcare Systems and chose which treatment they want and where they want to get it. You're wrongly interpreting the Public Healthcare System like a restaurant! And thats very far from the truth.

When you say "Everyone is going to think they need the next best, or experimental, or cutting edge whatever it is, no matter what the cost." that's no different to what happens in America with the private insurance plans.

People allways want the max, but are evaluated by doctors, and they determine which treatments will be given to them. And that is no different from a public or private hospital in any way. I'm pretty sure if you go to your private hospital you won't be bossing around doctors regarding which treatments you want to have. They will give you what they consider it's best for you and reasonable.

But with a National Healthcare System the doctors may do an extra effort, because they don't need to take into account the plans of the insurance company's president to buy a new 10 million dollar yacht, and how the cost of saving your life may damage that project...

Quote from: qwerty on September 16, 2011, 04:47

A question. In USA if you have no money and you get hit by a car and have a broken leg/pelvis what happens at the moment. Is there any safety net ?

Yes, care is free.

As I understand it, you won't be denied entry into an ER if you show up and need urgent care, but the hospital will definitely send you the bill afterwards.

The corporations use the media to tell the people that public healthcare is bad, expensive and all this just because they want a bigger cut of the healthcare pie and want to profit from it. Services provided by governments are not bad 'per se', but are bad for companies that want to profit from this service.

Very, very true. In my country that's the argument being used to destroy the National Healthcare System, to the point that the government made contracts with private entities to run several public hospitals. They said, private management would be more rational, efficient and would cut in unnecessary expenses and waste. The hospitals would still be public, only the management is private, so no risk of losing money to these managing companies.

The result? A TOTAL CATASTROPHE!!!

The hospitals that got privately ran presented the worse results ever with enormous damages in the finances - in the area of the thousands of millions � (billions of dollars).

Not to mention severe faults in hygiene, medical procedures and not to comply with most of their obligations like implementing a series of specialties in those hospitals. A disaster.
And these were modern hospitals built from scratch less than 10 years ago and one the last year, not old facilities with problems.

The image that privately run hospitals were better, more efficient e cheaper fall down like a castle of cards (in flames).

They became more expensive - because the managing company had to have their profit unlike the State that does not want to profit from healthcare - and could not cut in expenses because they were necessary
They were not more competent than public servants
The public was in danger with the hospital transferring patients to other units to cut in the expenses of that hospital 
Even lack of hygiene and safety medical procedures were detected to the point that one hospital refuses to allow Fiscals to get in and check the conditions which is highly illegal. 

an excerpt from the documentary "Sicko"

Nixon Launches the HMO's - What a SICKO

thanks nixon

Just a side note on the "million dollar treatment". A treatment that costs a million dollars in the US, is more likely to cost a few thousand Euros in Europe. The same exact thing. Simply because there's not the objective to make it profitable.

Certainly, when buying travel insurance in the UK, there are generally three levels of cover: Europe, rest of world and USA, with the US cover being much more expensive than going to the wilds of anywhere where there's a much higher risk of catching diseases, for example.

Quote from: XPTO on September 16, 2011, 07:42

So when you talk about the "million dollar treatment", you're talking about a treatment that costs a few thousands, but due to sheer greed, in the US they charge you 1 million dollar to have it and you even feel privileged!

Actually, I was thinking more about long, extended expensive hospital stays, with many specialists and lots of costly equipment and medicine.

Even then, if you take off the profit, the expense will never ever, get to the astronomical numbers charged in US I keep reading in many forums.

I don't know exactly about US prices in terms of exams, but did a little research on google and got appalling numbers!

The costs I mention from my country are from a private clinic with full price where the mentioned costs have no help from the State or even a Health Insurance. So, full price. With an exam credential from the State they would cost a pittance. And haven't even checked for cheaper places.

And these are exams made with modern equipment, not outdated junk.

x-ray of both knees
35� - my country - but there are x-rays of other body parts that go for 15�, to a maximum of 60�
$130 - USA   - this is the minimum, but the average is $200 and the maximum over a $1000

CT Scan
120� - my country - this was the least expensive but depending on area it can cost a maximum of 160�
$698 - USA   - this was the minimum but I saw numbers like $2000 or $3000 or $8000!

EKG
12� - my country
$470 - USA       - but it can go up to $2850

Cardiac Stress Test
100� - my country
$1100 - USA       - but it can go up to $10.000

And the list could go on and on.

Again, my country's prices are from a private clinic,  where there's profit involved and with full price (no state or insurance to reduce the costs). How is it possible that the same exams in the US costs hundreds of times more? I would put my hands on fire that the equipments are even of the same manufacturers in both countries.

And I live in an European country with good and reputed doctors, with many among the best in their specialty worldwide which teach in the universities. So, we're not talking about cheap witchdoctors...  

More, the cases you mention are just a fraction of all medical cases, and if the expenses mean to save the life of people I think it's money well spent because we never know when we will need the same treatments. And get sick and in the process homeless is inhumane.

EDIT:
And if people have simple and cheap access to healthcare, those long stays in the hospital with expensive specialists and equipment will be reduced to a minimum since people don't wait to be dying to get to a doctor. It's called preventive medicine.

I prefer to have a doctor appointment like I had today where I payed 2.5�, to get a prescription of a blood-thinner that even without prescription costs me 2,5�; than to avoid a doctor appointment because I cannot afford an insurance and private consults and have a Stroke, get disabled and then have a long stay in the hospital with expensive specialists and equipment and loose the house at the end.

What do you thin it's the cheapest situation for a country socially and economically in the end?...