Brexit Encore

[Robert Roaldi]

It has nothing to do with multi-millionaires, Jeremy. You're flouting your ignorance. If you can get to the U.S., you can get treatment. If you're a pauper, all you have to do is walk into an emergency room. They're required, by law, to treat you. If you're a pauper your problem would be transportation to the U.S., not the medical system, which, knowing nothing about it, you believe to be inefficient. I wish you could talk with some of the Canadians who come down to Florida in the winter for medical care they can't get in a timely fashion from Canada's "free" health care system. Our system has its flaws, but unlike "free" health care they tend not to be deadly.

It's commendable that emergency rooms must treat emergencies, but that really doesn't have much to do with long-term health care and society-wide health outcomes.

This is the 3rd or maybe 4th time that you relate your stories of 'deadly free Canadian health care' on these pages. I assume that you're referring to a few anecdotes you've heard and point out that assigning too much importance to a few anecdotes when making generalizations is problematic at best. And it's often wildly incorrect.

Also, please stop using "free" when describing Canadian health or any other comparable system. Everyone, except you, seems to understand that single payer health coverage is not free, we all pay into our national insurance system one way or the other for the service. Repeatedly, deliberately and erroneously using "free" as a pejorative is dog-whistle bs.

But since you like anecdotes, let me give you one. About a year ago, maybe more, there was a story on the news here (in Canada) about a lady on vacation in the US who sustained a leg injury somewhere, a bad break I think but not certain right now. She had purchased travel insurance through someone reputable, can't remember who, too long ago now. The insurance company estimated that it was cheaper to charter a private jet to fly her home, and pay out cancellation fees on the rest of her trip, to be treated at a Canadian hospital rather than go to a US emergency clinic.

[faberryman]

It's commendable that emergency rooms must treat emergencies, but that really doesn't have much to do with long-term health care and society-wide health outcomes.

Please note that while a hospital in the US has an obligation to treat emergencies, it bills for them. If you don't have insurance or otherwise can't pay, you may end up in bankruptcy court.

[RSL]

Also, please stop using "free" when describing Canadian health or any other comparable system. Everyone, except you, seems to understand that single payer health coverage is not free, we all pay into our national insurance system one way or the other for the service. Repeatedly, deliberately and erroneously using "free" as a pejorative is dog-whistle bs.

Of course it's not "free," Robert. That's the whole point. When government does it, it's a hell of a lot more expensive in the long run. You have to pay the doctors, the hospital managers, the politicians, etc. The other problem is that when it's "free to the user," meaning hidden in his taxes, it takes a lot longer to get the care you need. Since it doesn't "cost" the user, every hangnail goes to the doctor and the waiting line becomes obscene.

But since you like anecdotes, let me give you one. About a year ago, maybe more, there was a story on the news here (in Canada) about a lady on vacation in the US who sustained a leg injury somewhere, a bad break I think but not certain right now. She had purchased travel insurance through someone reputable, can't remember who, too long ago now. The insurance company estimated that it was cheaper to charter a private jet to fly her home, and pay out cancellation fees on the rest of her trip, to be treated at a Canadian hospital rather than go to a US emergency clinic.

ROTFL! If that anecdote is what you're basing your evaluation of U.S. medical care on, Robert, then it explains a great deal.

[RSL]

Please note that while a hospital in the US has an obligation to treat emergencies, it bills for them. If you don't have insurance or otherwise can't pay, you may end up in bankruptcy court.

But when you're in bankruptcy court you're still alive, when if you'd have had to wait the whole question would be moot.

[RSL]

Enough. This is all too silly to go on with.

[faberryman]

But when you're in bankruptcy court you're still alive, when if you'd have had to wait the whole question would be moot.

So the government requiring hospitals to treat emergencies is a good thing and not governmental interference with the free market? Alan thinks it is unconstitutional. not falling within Congress's enumerated powers, another example on the government impinging on his liberty.

[Robert Roaldi]

Of course it's not "free," Robert. That's the whole point. When government does it, it's a hell of a lot more expensive in the long run. You have to pay the doctors, the hospital managers, the politicians, etc. The other problem is that when it's "free to the user," meaning hidden in his taxes, it takes a lot longer to get the care you need. Since it doesn't "cost" the user, every hangnail goes to the doctor and the waiting line becomes obscene.

ROTFL! If that anecdote is what you're basing your evaluation of U.S. medical care on, Robert, then it explains a great deal.

As I said, it was by way of trading anecdotes. If you think it is ridiculous to judge American health care via that single incident (and of course it is), then you should be able to draw your own conclusions about the validity of your anecdotes.

[Robert Roaldi]

But when you're in bankruptcy court you're still alive, when if you'd have had to wait the whole question would be moot.

Do you believe that you've just made a valid point?

[Robert Roaldi]

Enough. This is all too silly to go on with.

As you keep telling everyone.

[kers]

Enough. This is all too silly to go on with.

I agree, ( i am not as old as you... but still...)

Since it is about Brexit, the latest is Boris Johnsons visit to Ireland.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/09/uk-parliament-faces-shutdown-johnson-failure-ireland-190909114058995.html
Al Jazeera quotes ;

"The people of this island, north and south, need to know that their livelihoods, their security, and their sense of identity will not be put at risk as a consequence of a hard Brexit," Varadkar told Johnson.
...
"Boris says 'I've got lots and lots of ideas', but he won't tell anyone what they are," said Al Jazeera's Laurence Lee, reporting from London.

-
The old unsolvable problem...;  1+1=2  , but Boris is going to find a different outcome...
-

[faberryman]

"Boris says 'I've got lots and lots of ideas', but he won't tell anyone what they are," said Al Jazeera's Laurence Lee, reporting from London.

So the question is whether BoJo is actually going to ask for the extension or not. Quite the dilemma for him.

[Chris Kern]

Please note that while a hospital in the US has an obligation to treat emergencies, it bills for them. If you don't have insurance or otherwise can't pay, you may end up in bankruptcy court.

This clearly has nothing to do with Brexit, but in at attempt to avoid the propagation of more irrelevant misinformation in this thread about the health care delivery system in the United States:

A federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (1986), requires hospitals to screen and "stabilize" (treat) patients with serious medical conditions regardless of their ability to pay.  If the patient has medical insurance or sufficient financial resources, of course the hospital can bill for its services.  However, hospitals cannot initiate civil suits against indigent patients.  To the contrary, the statute provides significant financial and other penalties for institutions or doctors who fail to provide emergency services to patients who are unable to pay for them.

[faberryman]

A federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (1986), requires hospitals to screen and "stabilize" (treat) patients with serious medical conditions regardless of their ability to pay.  If the patient has medical insurance or sufficient financial resources, of course the hospital can bill for its services.  However, hospitals cannot initiate civil suits against indigent patients.  To the contrary, the statute provides significant financial and other penalties for institutions or doctors who fail to provide emergency services to patients who are unable to pay for them.

You don't have to initiate a civil suit to hound debtors for payment. You just turn them over to a collection agency. We all know how that goes.

[jeremyrh]

So the question is whether BoJo is actually going to ask for the extension or not. Quite the dilemma for him.

Not really. He has never shown any courage, when push comes to shove. He promised to lie down in front of bulldozers to prevent a new Heathrow runway but he quickly forgot about that.

[Rob C]

Regarding point #1, I wasn't saying that America would have the same issues regarding health as GB such as the Spaining care.  It's just that when government takes over, you no longer can make independent decisions based on your personal needs.  It's a one size fits all plan.  If the government decides to do something that hurts you, you have nowhere to go.  With private insurance, there's competition and choice.

Regarding point #2, thanks for filling in.  But how can America affect you national health plan?  What kind of American access can there be? What kind of support does Boris expect from us regarding it?

Alan, wake up: private health care - via private insurance policies - is widely available in Britain to anyone who wants to buy it. That in no way precludes them from enjoying the full benefits of the national offering during the time they are double-covered. I also know family members still in the UK who paid private insurance policies for years, were hit by a problem, and then refused cover for any repeats of that illness. In Spain, on the other hand, they (private) covered me for two heart-attacks, my wife for four years of cancer treatment covering radio, chemo and four big ops. The last, fifth one was done on the national service as was her broken hip. The national service was so good we stopped shelling out for private.

Not support from the US; the idea seems to have been that our national system would be phased out to make way for US companies to move in with their insurance plans. Exactly what we needed most. Right. I can see the attractions for Trump and US medical industries. Not so much for us Brits. For Trump, he'd be increasing exports, making America Great Again at our cost. Of course, very few Americans would actually see any value from that, but as with many political stances, wonderful sound bites.

Somebody in the New Conservative Party has come out and denied that was ever intended.

Believe who you want to believe. I don't believe anything coming from neo-Nazis.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Godwin's Law!!! Bingo!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... "The people of this island, north and south, need to know that their livelihoods, their security, and their sense of identity will not be put at risk as a consequence of a hard Brexit," Varadkar told Johnson....

Who cares if the Irish are pissed off because of Brexit? Aren't they perennially pissed-off anyway, especially at the Brits?

[Peter McLennan]

Of course it's not "free," Robert. That's the whole point. When government does it, it's a hell of a lot more expensive in the long run.

Demonstrably untrue, Russ.  Americans pay more for health care than anyone else.  And with worse outcomes. 

I suggest this Google search term:  "compare us healthcare to other countries"

This result was at the top of the returns

https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2019/us-health-care-spending-highest-among-developed-countries.html

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Demonstrably untrue, Russ.

How would you demonstrate that? Short of converting the current system into a single-payer (government) one and compare with the current system?

Comparing with other countries is comparing apples and oranges. Plenty of other factors (e.i., not just private vs. public) affecting costs and outcomes.

[Alan Klein]

Alan, wake up: private health care - via private insurance policies - is widely available in Britain to anyone who wants to buy it. That in no way precludes them from enjoying the full benefits of the national offering during the time they are double-covered. I also know family members still in the UK who paid private insurance policies for years, were hit by a problem, and then refused cover for any repeats of that illness. In Spain, on the other hand, they (private) covered me for two heart-attacks, my wife for four years of cancer treatment covering radio, chemo and four big ops. The last, fifth one was done on the national service as was her broken hip. The national service was so good we stopped shelling out for private.

Not support from the US; the idea seems to have been that our national system would be phased out to make way for US companies to move in with their insurance plans. Exactly what we needed most. Right. I can see the attractions for Trump and US medical industries. Not so much for us Brits. For Trump, he'd be increasing exports, making America Great Again at our cost. Of course, very few Americans would actually see any value from that, but as with many political stances, wonderful sound bites.

Somebody in the New Conservative Party has come out and denied that was ever intended.

Believe who you want to believe. I don't believe anything coming from neo-Nazis.

You were previously griping about the British Healthcare System. Now you're praising it. Make up your mind.