A question for Candadians and UK folks and the Universal Healthcare

[newfoundland]

I think in order for National Health schemes to work it is necessary for the population to embrace the idea that we are all in this together. We are a society some of us are high wage earners, some low. We all inhabit the same space and are interdependant on each other. Our children, ALL our children, are our stake in the future and as such are our highest and most precious responsibility. Caring for our elderly, frail, disabled and sick is what elevates us to human beings. There is even evidence that cave people cared for their sick and elderly, by for example chewing food first for those who no longer had any teeth and carrying out basic bone setting etc. Surely, no one can truly believe that the person down the road and his family don't deserve health care because they are unlucky enough to have lost their jobs or have poor health. That could be me or you next week! Of course there will always be abusers, in any system. What you have to say to yourself is this, 'What if the person down the road is a scrounger? That does not affect me. My family will still get all they need.' There is not a limited amount of surgical operations etc. In any case how could people abuse the health system. They could not scrounge treatment they don't need and why would they? Someone said, 'It takes a village to raise a child,' and this is so true. Think of it as a universal fund that we all pay into and take the services as we need them. Obviously, there will always be net contributors and net receivers, but overall we will all get what we need. If the man down the road receives more than us then we thank God for our good fortune and wish him well!

 

[thaiturkey]

Quote:
Very nicely put!

Even primitive societies today take care of the sick amongst them one way or another. Most wealthy ones do nowadays too. If we were to look at it economically, it makes good sense for a country to ensure that its population is healthy. In terms of being civilised, I see no plausible alternative.

I think that people who refer to 'scroungers' mean those who benefit but don't contribute; the unemployed, the elderly, the young, the desabled. You have answered that point and I would add only that those who object must never have been so disadvantaged that they could never care for themselves.

Tax funded health care is a very simple insurance scheme where everyone is treated equally, whatever their condition and whatever their means. That inevitably means that some will benefit more than others. Where health is concerned, most would rather be a net contributor than a net receiver.

 

[Dunkopf]

Too bad people like you 2 aren't given time on USA media. The only place you hear that is on about 100 AM stations. The rest of the media just raves about having to pay a little more money. If more people would have presented it that way, we might have had a real health care plan. I like to believe that the majority of Americans actually care about people outside their own bubble. The squeaky wheel always gets the grease though. In this case the squeaky wheel managed to convince the majority that health care for all was an evil thing. The media is a powerful thing.

 

[Dunkopf]

Quote:
You're right, they are rare. Mine isn't a public company either..

Self-insured schemes in your country are probably regulated by the government. At least, they should be. It might be worth your while checking the regulations and then finding out whether your employer is fully compliant. The government should be making sure that there are adequately protected reserves because medical bills will have to be paid even before rates are increased following a bad year. There's also a constant possibility that a very hefty bill might come in a seriously deplete the fund. They should also be making sure that no-one can skim money from the pot. Another issue is whether escrow arrangements protect the fund in the event of liquidation or sale of the business. Accounts for the scheme should be available to employees, the terms if the cover should be enforceable in law and there may be a legal requirement to have a scheme compliance officer who is obliged to report any irregularities to the regulatory body. That all might seem heavy handed but it could be important if you are in hospital awaiting a major operation and something goes wrong with the fund.

Insurance is a serious business and actuarial skills are need to ensure that today's income is sufficient for tomorrow's costs. Technical terms include 'unearned premium reserve' and 'catastrophe reserve'. It's not a game for amateurs and it's the employees' money and well-being that's at risk.

I work for a large Auto/Life/Property insurance company. They are very fiscally conservative and have been in business about 80 years. The health insurance is managed by BCBS. Our company sets the requirements. They raised the age for children to 26 last year before it became law.

I have it good. Yet I am willing to go to a national plan. It may mean lesser service than what I currently have, but the good of the many is more important than the good of the few. A healthy well eductated population is required if we are going to survive as a country.

 

[birdsNbeesNseeds]

Hmmmm............

Sorry, but we already have a government-run health care program under the VA system. Depending on the region of the country you are in (just like I am hearing from the people in Canada) we have had problems with access and wait.

Once administrator even said publicly, My job is to save the taxpayers money. Well, I thought the job of the VA was to help Veterans.

When we lived in a another area of the country it took FOREVER to get anything done, any appointments, or even see the right doctor. It's better in the area we are now, but we still have two month waits sometimes. This is what scares me if the gov ever gets control.

 

[True Grit]

Quote:
Self-insured schemes in your country are probably regulated by the government. At least, they should be. It might be worth your while checking the regulations and then finding out whether your employer is fully compliant. The government should be making sure that there are adequately protected reserves because medical bills will have to be paid even before rates are increased following a bad year. There's also a constant possibility that a very hefty bill might come in a seriously deplete the fund. They should also be making sure that no-one can skim money from the pot. Another issue is whether escrow arrangements protect the fund in the event of liquidation or sale of the business. Accounts for the scheme should be available to employees, the terms if the cover should be enforceable in law and there may be a legal requirement to have a scheme compliance officer who is obliged to report any irregularities to the regulatory body. That all might seem heavy handed but it could be important if you are in hospital awaiting a major operation and something goes wrong with the fund.

Insurance is a serious business and actuarial skills are need to ensure that today's income is sufficient for tomorrow's costs. Technical terms include 'unearned premium reserve' and 'catastrophe reserve'. It's not a game for amateurs and it's the employees' money and well-being that's at risk.

I work for a large Auto/Life/Property insurance company. They are very fiscally conservative and have been in business about 80 years. The health insurance is managed by BCBS. Our company sets the requirements. They raised the age for children to 26 last year before it became law.

I have it good. Yet I am willing to go to a national plan. It may mean lesser service than what I currently have, but the good of the many is more important than the good of the few. A healthy well eductated population is required if we are going to survive as a country.

Thanks for the advice ThaiTurkey, ours is administered by BCBS as well, and knowing my company which is also fiscally conservative and been around for a long time, I think the scheme is probably legal and well run, just very disappointing. I will keep your comments in mind though. I think they are subverting the intention of health care reform.
Dunkopf, fully agree. Also with newfoundland.

 

[thaiturkey]

Quote:
Thanks. I hope that the facts, discussions and links have helped to inform a few people.

The UK NI scheme doesn't seem to be comparatively expensive. That is probably because all wage earners pay, even the ones who are in excellent health and might not insure voluntary. I think that the US government plans are bedevilled by a well orchestrated and wealthy opposition, misinformation and the Administration's failure to explain it properly. Having said that, it's a hell if a mountain to climb. When the NI scheme was introduced in the UK the nation was economically in dire straits and health care was a clear priority. The Labour government had such a big majority in Parliament that there was no effective opposition to it. You guys in the States are starting from a very different gate.

The media are powerful but it's the owners that decide how that power is used!

 

[thaiturkey]

Quote:
Have a look back at my earlier posts and you will see how the UK government sets measured standards for appointment times and waiting room delays.

Budgetary control is essential but it doesn't have to get in the way of good treatment. In a State run system its about setting an appropriate budget so that taxes can be collected. I a private insurance market its about minimising costs without breaking the contract terms. If a State run system aims to minimise costs its the wrong system.

Again, in the UK urgent treatment is given straight away. I once needed a hernia operation which is usually regarded as non-urgent. The surgeon said that the waiting list was two months. I said that the hernia was really paining me and it was affecting my work. I was in for the operation the next week.

If a health system is designed around profit and minimising costs, a lot of people will be left outside.

 

[Dar]

Quote:
I am not sure what you are referring to with wait times... I waited 4 weeks for an MRI of my foot... it was not and emergency... so I was LOW on the list.. blood work is done the same day, with results usually within 24 hours.. 3 days for an ultrasound.. and again not an emergency

My mom and breast cancer.. from the time she found the lump, had all the tests to confirm cancer, the surgery to remove the ,lump and the first round of chemo was about 6 months. I think that would have been reduced if she did not have an infected milk duct as well. they treated the infection and were surprised when the lump did not go away. she is 62 years old and an infected duct is not uncommon

I can only speak for Ontario though. Our wait times are not outrageous.

I work in the community health care system. when the government body who over sees the home health care (CCAC) receives the referral for home care usually within a week there is a CCAC worker that visits the home to access the needs (nursing, PSW, OT, PT, ect..) and then makes all the calls. Within a week of that visit you will have a visit from all the health care fields that needs to be involved. Max 3 weeks from the initial referral... thats not bad.

 

[BlackBart]

Quote:
I live in rural Guelph.. I waited about 6 months to get a family doc I called them once a month to keep my prioirty on the list... all of our walk in clinics were closed in town (fraud allegations against the owner) so when that ave closed we had to rely on the ER too

BlackBart:

the $16 that you mom pays is FREE her in Ontario. Its cart of CCAC (Community Care Access Center) the government (ministry of health and longterm care) pays for this care.. this is the area of Nursing I work in.. I go to clients homes and do the nursing care right in their home so they can stay in their home as long as possible or die at home if thats their wish

Thank-god for people like you

In BC it is based on your income. It is beginning to look more attractive to be below a certain income then everything is free

My friend discovered a lump in her breast, she was admitted to the hospital for a biopsy within three days and had her cancer operation within a week.
Our system works on a triage basis.
Granted, considering the volume of patients a few do fall between the cracks while others think they are top priority.

Good post Newfoundland