Read my comment. I am in the U.K and talking about OUR
taxes.
(Are you talking about British or American taxes)?
If you live outside the country for a length of time and don’t pay taxes you are not intitled to the N.H.S.

If he doesn’t pay taxes here why would he even inquire about the N.H.S and believe he had a right to access it.
The only reason he didn’t try to use the N.H.S was because he thought it was crap,not to save us money.
Did he even see any British doctor,who could of fast tracked.
Waiting times differ around the country and he could of shopped around for lowest times.
The referral time has to be 2 weeks, if the doctors believed they only had 6 weeks to save him then there are system’s in place to address that.

I work in the N.H.S and every time Americans attack the N.H.S i get annoyed.
It has nothing to do with Americans so leave us out of it.
There is not a huge movement here to implant the N.H.S in the U.S
My main question was ,if he was uninsured in the U.S and didn’t have the money to pay for it, what woukd of happened ?

Sarah Palin called it ‘evil’ and we would of killed her son at birth,i work in it so am i an evil-doer?

I have read that we have enforced amnio’s and abortions.
The funniest one was the claim that if Stephen Hawkings was born in the U.K we would of killed him by now.

Posters should be discussing the problems with their own
healthcare model, they could start by addressing the high maternal death rate in the U.S
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1383244/America-WORST-maternal-death-rate-industrialised-nation.html

Waiting

The hard part is for politicians to reduce costs and waste while protecting the income of doctors and nurses. It will be hard to accomplish given the political power of big pharma and insurance co’s in DC.

bayam on July 30, 2011 at 8:13 PM

No, the hard part is for them (and you) to finally admit that politicians have no business sticking their noses into healthcare at all. It isn’t their job to reduce costs or waste and the best way they can protect the income of doctors and nurses is simply for them to mind their own damn business.

My doctor is quitting his practice due to obamacare, and my health insurance is getting more expensive even faster than before obamacare. Politicians don’t know how to run a healthcare system, so everything they’ve tried in this arena has made the problems worse. There are no exceptions to this, EVERYTHING they’ve done has failed. Perhaps they are the problem. As a bonus, once the govt is out of the healthcare business the healthcare lobbies will have no power in DC. Think about it (for once).

Are you paying tax in the U.K?
If you don’t, why do you expect our taxes to pay for you?
If you were uninsured and didn’t have the money to pay,would
you be happy to wait 12 weeks?

Did you actually READ his story? I think you need to reread it again. It was actually quite inspiring. He paid out of pocket and DID NOT expect our taxes to pay for him.
Reading comprehension is a lovely thing.

How long have you been out of the country?
Are you paying tax in the U.K?
If you don’t, why do you expect our taxes to pay for you?
If you were uninsured and didn’t have the money to pay,would
you be happy to wait 12 weeks?

Thats the whole point of the N.H.S, that health shouldn’t be based on ability to pay.

The further details are that there is no accounting for lost productivity or pain and suffering, or premature death due to substandard survival rates for childhood or adult cancers. It only looks less expensive because certain categories of very real costs are excluded by design.

I’d take the Swiss system over any alternative to what we have now. Competitive nonprofits. The UK’s approach is a poor performer, national pride be damned. Same for Canada.

DrSteve on July 30, 2011 at 1:58 PM

I agree, the nonprofit model is very effective, as proven in the US and abroad.. But one way or another, for the US to be a competitive place to manufacture, health care costs must come down. This issue is far more pressing than corporate tax rates or loopholes.

The hard part is for politicians to reduce costs and waste while protecting the income of doctors and nurses. It will be hard to accomplish given the political power of big pharma and insurance co’s in DC.

That is why these systems actually end up favoring the wealthy…

One of the changes adopted during Hillarycare was to make it illegal for a doctor who had accepted Medicare patients in the recent past to treat such patients with any uncovered procedures. So, if you want any non-covered treatments once you qualify for Medicare then you have to give up Medicare which now means you also have to give up Social Security.

The people who are can receive such treatments – think of the experimental treatment for Ted Kennedy – are former government workers who were not covered by SS.

We will have a two tiered system: one for the wealthy and former government employees and one for us peasants.

PLEASE STOP THE AUTO PLAY VIDEO ADS!

ronsfi on July 30, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Dude… Firefox + adblock = way more enjoyable internet

Executives believe the delays mean some people will remove themselves from lists “either by dying or by paying for their own treatment”

Reminds me of that old anti-smoking commercial with the tobacco executive meeting.
“…another X smokers also quit. Actually, technically, they die.”

The details are that the UK spends 50% less of its GDP on healthcare than the United States. Of course the quality of care isn’t comparable.

bayam on July 30, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Hahahaha. And of course, the U.S. can continue to spend, spend, spend at those levels because we’ve got plenty of money to burn, right bayam?

They’re just not doing it right, we know better over here because we have Obama in charge.

txmomof6 on July 30, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Yes, as little Bammie said, comparing 1994 to 2008, “it will be different this time because you’ve got me”.

The details are that the UK spends 50% less of its GDP on healthcare than the United States. Of course the quality of care isn’t comparable.

bayam on July 30, 2011 at 1:33 PM

The further details are that there is no accounting for lost productivity or pain and suffering, or premature death due to substandard survival rates for childhood or adult cancers. It only looks less expensive because certain categories of very real costs are excluded by design.

I’d take the Swiss system over any alternative to what we have now. Competitive nonprofits. The UK’s approach is a poor performer, national pride be damned. Same for Canada.