Stephen Hawking Enters U.s. Health Care Debate

[dUSt]

We already have free public healthcare in this country--it's called the emergency room. And it's where people with no insurance go if they have a headache, a soar throat, or a sprained ankle.

Might as well fix it--if for nothing else than to simply make the emergency room what is suppose to be--the place for [b]emergencies[/b]. What a concept.

[Archaeology cat]

The clinics I've gone to in Liverpool and rural Lincolnshire have been fine. Haven't lived in other areas, so I can't comment on that. And my point of reference from the US was in western KY, southern IN, and northern FL.

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='dUSt' post='1948020' date='Aug 13 2009, 11:23 AM']We already have free public healthcare in this country--it's called the emergency room. And it's where people with no insurance go if they have a headache, a soar throat, or a sprained ankle.

Might as well fix it--if for nothing else than to simply make the emergency room what is suppose to be--the place for [b]emergencies[/b]. What a concept.[/quote]


So you mean to tell us that if you break an arm or have a heart attack and have to go to the emergency room and stay in the hospital, you don't have to pay for it? Someone has to pay for it. I can tell you right now if I had something happen to me back in the U.S. I wouldn't have been able to go the ER and get a broken leg plastered in a cast and sent on my merry way just for free.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Ash Wednesday

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1947831' date='Aug 13 2009, 02:32 AM']Yes you did. Your initial ones anyway, you continue to morph them as the facts continually fail to meet your claims. And here they are.

[i]Yes, a professor like Hawking would never have private insurance either on his own or through his university. Without the NHS, he would be dead. Even smart people can make dumb statements.

Maybe the point of the editorial is to say people in a condition like Hawkings would not receive the same care as Hawkings. Yes, everyone is equal; it's just that some are more equal than others. [/i][/quote]
My original statement stands as is, no morphing required. Did you miss the "either [b]on his own[/b] or through his university?" On his own meaning by his own efforts be it through seeking employment or being on a family member's policy, etc. Explain how I morphed?

[quote]The UK doesn't have Medicaid, that is an American program (nor does the point help you). You have no idea what access he had to private insurance.[/quote]
Now I think you are just trying to be thick to irritate me. We are talking about a hypothetical situation.

The issue on the table is what would happen if the U.S. had a UK style of healthcare system. To examine if a UK system is what we should even consider here, we apply what we know about the U.S. system to the UK and put Hawkings in such a scenario and see if he would have received treatment.

You and those who agree with you feel he is more likely to not have received treatment than to have received treatment in a U.S. style system. Given his circumstances and coverage vehicles in the U.S., it is far more likely he would have been covered than not.
[quote]So?[/quote]
The point is that someone distinguished is not going to go without healthcare. He would get the attention of someone if he had no coverage anywhere.

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' post='1947990' date='Aug 13 2009, 11:44 AM']Have you ever actually lived in the UK?[/quote]
Yes, I have traveled in the UK. All countries have their version of bacon and Twinkies, but numbers don't lie. [url="http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity"]America has a worse diet[/url] than the UK. Obesity brings on many health problems and [url="http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mor_obe_percap-mortality-obesity-per-capita"]of course hastens death[/url].

[quote]So you mean to tell us that if you break an arm or have a heart attack and have to go to the emergency room and stay in the hospital, you don't have to pay for it? Someone has to pay for it.[/quote]
Dust is right. Hospitals cannot refuse emergency care even if uninsured. Who pays for it? The hospital and tax payers. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkland_Hospital#Controversy"]Check this out[/url].

Edited August 13, 2009 by kamiller42

[jkaands]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' post='1948026' date='Aug 13 2009, 11:28 AM']So you mean to tell us that if you break an arm or have a heart attack and have to go to the emergency room and stay in the hospital, you don't have to pay for it? Someone has to pay for it. I can tell you right now if I had something happen to me back in the U.S. I wouldn't have been able to go the ER and get a broken leg plastered in a cast and sent on my merry way just for free.[/quote]

Absolutely. They will bill you and you won't be able to figure out the bill or believe how much it cost you. They will pursue you, with collecting agencies, the lot. Better to go in and see if you can negotiate down the charges. If you're on welfare, you may be able to get away with it. Otherwise, you pay and you pay big.

A friend of mine, a doctor, was in a cab being driven by an old man. He said that he was driving it to pay off his dead wife's medical bills. He might have been lying, but I doubt it.

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='jkaands' post='1948080' date='Aug 13 2009, 12:57 PM']Absolutely. They will bill you and you won't be able to figure out the bill or believe how much it cost you. They will pursue you, with collecting agencies, the lot. Better to go in and see if you can negotiate down the charges. If you're on welfare, you may be able to get away with it. Otherwise, you pay and you pay big.

A friend of mine, a doctor, was in a cab being driven by an old man. He said that he was driving it to pay off his dead wife's medical bills. He might have been lying, but I doubt it.[/quote]

I don't think your friend was lying. At least half of the bankruptcies filed in the U.S. are because of medical bills. I know two people back in the U.S. who fix cars for a living and are self-employed. One had to get open heart surgery, it was over $100,000. Another got in an accident and had a vein crushed in his leg. For whatever reason he had to get a pricey surgery. Last I heard, he had relatives willing to let him live with them, the money he would have been paying for mortgage or rent was going to pay the surgery off.

What I did when I was self-employed was pay catastrophic insurance, it was a certain fee a month with a deductible of about $1000, which I would pay and the insurance would pay the rest. I often have fears about insurance companies trying to get out of paying for some things, though. But in theory paying $1000 for a broken arm would have been better than paying about $15,000. Luckily nothing bad happened to me where I had to find out. But I have a thyroid condition and other health problems related to that, so I had to pay for doctors visits and prescriptions, which was pretty costly. Comprehensive health plans for self-employed that have the same coverage you get when you are employed are very expensive.

One of my friends who is a freelancer has gone completely cold turkey and is just "hoping her health stays good" -- which is fine when she doesn't have to pay for doctor's office visits, but she will be completely screwed if she even so much as trips down the stairs....

[VeniteAdoremus]

My stepfather is still trying to get insurance money from the time when he was working at the Dutch consulate somewhere in the US (I don't know which one it was, he went around). They tried to wiggle out of coverage. To be fair, you hear the same thing here from time to time, though never that excessive (more like "is this necessary or cosmetic" and whether things like physiotherapy are "alternative" treatment).

I have been very lucky with my insurance. Everybody in the Netherlands has a basic insurance for about 80 euros a month (for adults, and if you're unemployed you can get state support). When I was going through growth hormone treatment neither of my parents were employed, and the meds were CRAZY expensive. I wouldn't have liked being a sixteen-year-old with a 175.000 euro debt

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1948077' date='Aug 13 2009, 12:54 PM']Yes, I have traveled in the UK. All countries have their version of bacon and Twinkies, but numbers don't lie. [url="http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity"]America has a worse diet[/url] than the UK. Obesity brings on many health problems and [url="http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mor_obe_percap-mortality-obesity-per-capita"]of course hastens death[/url].[/quote]

I think some things might factor into that, probably because the British have to walk around more and rely less on cars, or possibly portion sizes being smaller, but I still think their overall diet is just as bad as the Americans. In general, after living in both countries for an extended period of time, minor cultural differences aside, I don't find their lifestyle all that much healthier than ours, nor do I find their healthcare necessarily all that much worse than ours. Yes there are horror stories but those exist with health care both sides of the pond. Basically my point is, I find your argument that the British are significantly healthier and the quality of U.K. healthcare is so bad that such a scenario in the U.S. would reduce American life expectency by 10 years to be questionable, when in my experience I find diets, state of health/lifestyle and quality of healthcare to be, overall, not all that radically different. Certainly not 10 years life expectency worth. Now if you're talking about the quality of the health care deteriorating and shortening life expectency because an NHS system would not be able to fly in practice in the U.S. the way it does in the U.K., I can agree with that.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Ash Wednesday

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' post='1948576' date='Aug 14 2009, 06:34 AM']I think some things might factor into that, probably because the British have to walk around more and rely less on cars, or possibly portion sizes being smaller, but I still think their overall diet is just as bad as the Americans. In general, after living in both countries for an extended period of time, minor cultural differences aside, I don't find their lifestyle all that much healthier than ours, nor do I find their healthcare necessarily all that much worse than ours. Yes there are horror stories but those exist with health care both sides of the pond. Basically my point is, I find your argument that the British are significantly healthier and the quality of U.K. healthcare is so bad that such a scenario in the U.S. would reduce American life expectency by 10 years to be questionable, when in my experience I find diets, state of health/lifestyle and quality of healthcare to be, overall, not all that radically different. Certainly not 10 years life expectency worth. Now if you're talking about the quality of the health care deteriorating and shortening life expectency because an NHS system would not be able to fly in practice in the U.S. the way it does in the U.K., I can agree with that.[/quote]

[jkaands]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' post='1948116' date='Aug 13 2009, 02:31 PM']I don't think your friend was lying. At least half of the bankruptcies filed in the U.S. are because of medical bills. I know two people back in the U.S. who fix cars for a living and are self-employed. One had to get open heart surgery, it was over $100,000. Another got in an accident and had a vein crushed in his leg. For whatever reason he had to get a pricey surgery. Last I heard, he had relatives willing to let him live with them, the money he would have been paying for mortgage or rent was going to pay the surgery off.

What I did when I was self-employed was pay catastrophic insurance, it was a certain fee a month with a deductible of about $1000, which I would pay and the insurance would pay the rest. I often have fears about insurance companies trying to get out of paying for some things, though. But in theory paying $1000 for a broken arm would have been better than paying about $15,000. Luckily nothing bad happened to me where I had to find out. But I have a thyroid condition and other health problems related to that, so I had to pay for doctors visits and prescriptions, which was pretty costly. Comprehensive health plans for self-employed that have the same coverage you get when you are employed are very expensive.

One of my friends who is a freelancer has gone completely cold turkey and is just "hoping her health stays good" -- which is fine when she doesn't have to pay for doctor's office visits, but she will be completely screwed if she even so much as trips down the stairs.... [/quote]

My brother-in-law didn't have job-related health insurance and had to buy his own policy. He was single and well, only requiring generic thyroid medicine, but in his 50's. His insurance cost him $18.000/year. I told him to opt for a high deductible--I don't know what it ended up--but he was able to get the same coverage for 'only' $12,000./year, still a hefty sum.

[jkaands]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1947707' date='Aug 12 2009, 11:01 PM']Even nominal jobs come with health insurance.

UK's life expectancy is 78.7 and the U.S., with all its tremendous flaws, so horrible as to require intersession by the federal government, is 78.06. I think our rate is pretty good considering how we eat. A UK system with our eating and lack of exercise habits, our life expectancy might be 68.

Everyone would like to see improvements. The debate is what kind of reform will work best.[/quote]

I don't know what kind of jobs your nation you're talking about. Aside from federal or state jobs, many jobs come with no health insurance or only limited, very high option insurance, like Whole Foods with its $2500./per year deductible. Many companies have dropped health insurance in the last few years.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='jkaands' post='1948887' date='Aug 14 2009, 03:29 PM']I don't know what kind of jobs your nation you're talking about. Aside from federal or state jobs, many jobs come with no health insurance or only limited, very high option insurance, like Whole Foods with its $2500./per year deductible. Many companies have dropped health insurance in the last few years.[/quote]
Oh, the attack on Whole Foods has begun because of what [url="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html"]the CEO wrote about health care reform[/url]. Talking points deployed!

Well, his article is a very sensible approach to health care reform, much better than the wrecking ball Obama wants to take to it.

And when you mention the heartless $2500 deduct, did you mention that Whole Foods pays 100% of their premiums and provides an additional $1,800 of deposits in employees' Personal Wellness Accounts? Sounds like a sweet deal to me. If they want a lower deduct, then employees should pay the difference.

[quote]Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan's costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.[/quote]