7 ms·

Having lived in the uk for the first 27 years of my life, and then in California for the past 10, I have only one word to describe the way American healthcare f

Having lived in the uk for the first 27 years of my life, and then in California for the past 10, I have only one word to describe the way American healthcare feels to me: barbaric. Long live the NHS, and yay for Obamacare - it seems like a step in the right direction at least.

marknutter 14y ago
Why does it seem like a step in the right direction, specifically?
- GiraffeNecktie 14y ago
  One reason is that it represents the first acknowledgement that health care is something that every man, woman and child should have. That's not to say there aren't horrible things about Obamacare (i.e. terrible business model) but yes, it's a start.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - JackFr 14y ago
    Everyone requires food, clothing and shelter, and yet we use other mechanisms to insure that our citizens don't go hungry. While not necessary for survival, education is guaranteed by the states, and we use a different model for its delivery. Neither of those is to say that necessarily Obamacare is the wrong solution but its certainly not the only path.
    - NateDad 14y ago
      6.7 million households went hungry in 2012. How are those "other mechanisms" working out? Source: http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.ht...
      - JackFr 14y ago
        Food insecurity is not the same thing as going hungry. Changing your food buying patterns, ie foregoing a purchase you might have otherwise made, to buy food is not pleasant, but it is not hunger.
- abstractbill 14y ago
  For me there's a very specific, personal, reason. At the end of 2011 I got randomly unlucky and suffered from pneumonia, a stomach ulcer, and a norovirus all in the space of three months. I was hospitalized for the norovirus. After that I was told by more than one insurance agent that I wouldn't be able to purchase insurance at any price, for about 18 months. Obamacare does at least stop that from happening to people. I'd prefer single-payer, but like I said, it's a step.
  - marknutter 14y ago
    Well, buying insurance to treat a pre-existing condition would be a little like trying to get a car accident covered by insurance after the fact, wouldn't it?
    - potatolicious 14y ago
      Yes, but health insurance is not insurance at all. It's really a gross misnomer, and outside of a niche market, no one seriously sells health insurance. Insurance is designed to protect the policy holder from an unlikely, catastrophic event they cannot afford otherwise - coverage of everyday costs is not insurance. Notice your insurance company doesn't pay to rotate your tires or change your oil. Health care, no matter which country you go to, is more of the latter than the former. They aren't primarily insuring against unlikely catastrophic events - that's only a small part of their purpose - they are very obvious ways to spread costs around. You can't treat health insurance like real insurance, even if they share a name.
      - marknutter 14y ago
        Well then what's wrong with people simply paying out of pocket for basic services? Insurance would be there to cover the truly catastrophic health issues, but otherwise we would all pay for the level of basic service (maintenance) we prefer to pay for.
        potatolicious 14y ago
Aaronontheweb 14y ago
Speaking as someone who's had multiple relatives die at the hands of NHS rationing, I completely disagree. In a system where you can't sue your healthcare provider for egregious malpractice because they're a governmental body and are thus subject to the same citizen-sues-state rules as law enforcement or any other public service, I fear for the quality of our healthcare.
- bengillies 14y ago
  Can you explain this please, as I'm pretty sure you can totally sue the NHS if you want to.
  - Aaronontheweb 14y ago
    Sure In one instance in the 1970s I had a great uncle who came into a local clinic complaining about crushing chest-pain, and was told to come back the following day because the attending physician was out for the day. He died on the street of a heart attack while walking home. Why he wasn't immediately rushed to a hospital is beyond me. More recently, my grandmother, who died in 2004, was wait listed for over a year to get medical imaging and biopsy performed on what she (correctly) assumed was a tumor on her neck. By the time the scan was performed it was determined that she had metastasized lymphoma and the tumor was plainly visible to anyone who could fog a mirror. She died in hospice within a couple of months of being diagnosed. So what are we to sue for there? Clearly both instances of complete and utter NHS incompetence (and sadly, complacency on the part of my UK relatives) but it's incompetence by omission and rationing, not a doctor embedding a scalpel into someone's tibia. Had either of my relatives lived in the US, they would have had a much better fighting chance at living than they did at the hands of the NHS.
    - lotsofcows 14y ago
      First one sounds odd. What sort of "clinic"? That's not really a word I associate with medicine. Second clearly sounds like a fuck up. Current "wait to first treatment" target is 2 weeks. What happened when you tried to sue?
    - 14y ago
bitcartel 14y ago
Isn't the NHS in the process of being gutted? In fact, the current health secretary believes the NHS is irrelevant and wants it dismantled completely. http://www.bengoldacre.net/?p=45 http://www.bengoldacre.net/?p=45

marknutter 14y ago

Why does it seem like a step in the right direction, specifically?

GiraffeNecktie 14y ago
One reason is that it represents the first acknowledgement that health care is something that every man, woman and child should have. That's not to say there aren't horrible things about Obamacare (i.e. terrible business model) but yes, it's a start.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- JackFr 14y ago
  Everyone requires food, clothing and shelter, and yet we use other mechanisms to insure that our citizens don't go hungry. While not necessary for survival, education is guaranteed by the states, and we use a different model for its delivery. Neither of those is to say that necessarily Obamacare is the wrong solution but its certainly not the only path.
  - NateDad 14y ago
    6.7 million households went hungry in 2012. How are those "other mechanisms" working out? Source: http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.ht...
    - JackFr 14y ago
      Food insecurity is not the same thing as going hungry. Changing your food buying patterns, ie foregoing a purchase you might have otherwise made, to buy food is not pleasant, but it is not hunger.
abstractbill 14y ago
For me there's a very specific, personal, reason. At the end of 2011 I got randomly unlucky and suffered from pneumonia, a stomach ulcer, and a norovirus all in the space of three months. I was hospitalized for the norovirus. After that I was told by more than one insurance agent that I wouldn't be able to purchase insurance at any price, for about 18 months. Obamacare does at least stop that from happening to people. I'd prefer single-payer, but like I said, it's a step.
- marknutter 14y ago
  Well, buying insurance to treat a pre-existing condition would be a little like trying to get a car accident covered by insurance after the fact, wouldn't it?
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    Yes, but health insurance is not insurance at all. It's really a gross misnomer, and outside of a niche market, no one seriously sells health insurance. Insurance is designed to protect the policy holder from an unlikely, catastrophic event they cannot afford otherwise - coverage of everyday costs is not insurance. Notice your insurance company doesn't pay to rotate your tires or change your oil. Health care, no matter which country you go to, is more of the latter than the former. They aren't primarily insuring against unlikely catastrophic events - that's only a small part of their purpose - they are very obvious ways to spread costs around. You can't treat health insurance like real insurance, even if they share a name.
    - marknutter 14y ago
      Well then what's wrong with people simply paying out of pocket for basic services? Insurance would be there to cover the truly catastrophic health issues, but otherwise we would all pay for the level of basic service (maintenance) we prefer to pay for.
      - potatolicious 14y ago

Aaronontheweb 14y ago

Speaking as someone who's had multiple relatives die at the hands of NHS rationing, I completely disagree. In a system where you can't sue your healthcare provider for egregious malpractice because they're a governmental body and are thus subject to the same citizen-sues-state rules as law enforcement or any other public service, I fear for the quality of our healthcare.

bengillies 14y ago
Can you explain this please, as I'm pretty sure you can totally sue the NHS if you want to.
- Aaronontheweb 14y ago
  Sure In one instance in the 1970s I had a great uncle who came into a local clinic complaining about crushing chest-pain, and was told to come back the following day because the attending physician was out for the day. He died on the street of a heart attack while walking home. Why he wasn't immediately rushed to a hospital is beyond me. More recently, my grandmother, who died in 2004, was wait listed for over a year to get medical imaging and biopsy performed on what she (correctly) assumed was a tumor on her neck. By the time the scan was performed it was determined that she had metastasized lymphoma and the tumor was plainly visible to anyone who could fog a mirror. She died in hospice within a couple of months of being diagnosed. So what are we to sue for there? Clearly both instances of complete and utter NHS incompetence (and sadly, complacency on the part of my UK relatives) but it's incompetence by omission and rationing, not a doctor embedding a scalpel into someone's tibia. Had either of my relatives lived in the US, they would have had a much better fighting chance at living than they did at the hands of the NHS.
  - lotsofcows 14y ago
    First one sounds odd. What sort of "clinic"? That's not really a word I associate with medicine. Second clearly sounds like a fuck up. Current "wait to first treatment" target is 2 weeks. What happened when you tried to sue?
  - 14y ago

bitcartel 14y ago

Isn't the NHS in the process of being gutted? In fact, the current health secretary believes the NHS is irrelevant and wants it dismantled completely. http://www.bengoldacre.net/?p=45 http://www.bengoldacre.net/?p=45