The "Denmark" gambit....

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: grainofsand

To make a long story short, The State of Washington had it's own form of umbrella to cover cases like myself. I received the needed help and my bill was far smaller than what the average person would receive that had coverage with a co-pay.

So you still had to pay then? What if you were homeless and didn't have two dimes to rub together, would you still have had the treatment?

Here in the UK yes definitely, and the homeless person would receive whatever expensive drugs they needed without having to pay anything.

If that is the case in the US then I'll accept the claim of hyperbole, but if a citizen with no money is required to find money for medical care then hyperbole it ain't.

Short answer? Yes. There was no questioning of my ability to pay. A street person? Probably not. I have my own physician whom I paid directly. He referred me to the appropriate medical facilities.

The 'street person' would likely have to go to a Federally funded hospital which, by law, is required to provide immediate service to. That's where it might break down as in my case, the 'lesion' was thought to be viral, not cancer. It took a biopsy to properly diagnose it. That option could only be achieved by a 'street person' if they knew the ins and outs of the system and which agency to go to.

It is, to some degree hyperbole. There are many examples out there that say otherwise, which I can't deny...and wouldn't.

My point is the picture of no options, you would not get treatment just isn't a true one. This nation isn't totally lacking in compassion.

Living as I do within 100 yards of the Canadian border, the streams of Canadians coming down for treatments that have long waiting lists in Canada, by-passing their system, is amazing.

No system is perfect. The majority in the U.S. were perfectly satisfied with theirs.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Just because you've become Medicare eligible, doesn't mean you don't have every right to purchase all of the additional healthcare coverage you feel is necessary.

As a matter of fact, most people on Medicare purchase what are called supplemental plans that cover cost not covered by Medicare.

Although, I do agree that the ACA is not "socialized healthcare" and for the very reason you stated, which is that private, for-profit, healthcare insurance providers were allowed to be part of it, while at the same time, leaving a huge number people out of it.

While it may not be the "best" first step, it is a first step and I believe it will eventually get morphed into a truly universal, single-payer, not for-profit, healthcare insurance program.

Rapid change is not something we do well here in America, but I have confidence that we'll get there, one baby step at a time.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
No system is perfect.

Agreed, and some are less perfect than others.
Perhaps you would not like a health care system similar to the UK's NHS in your state, but I certainly prefer what we have over here.
No hoops for poor people to jump through, just the decisions of the clinician.

Why would you not wish that for your poor people?

a reply to: Debunkology

No argument from me on that score. I did say both sides tend to exaggerate. I also said we weren't in good shape financially either.

I would say the amount of national debt isn't the only aspect I would weight in deciding what nation to live in. A definite concern though. Much more a concern on the right in the U.S. than the left, however.

In all honesty, I'd prefer you relocating to Sweden rather than here....enjoy....

a reply to: grainofsand

Re-read my post that I sent back to you. It's not the money. It's a gov't telling me what, when and how much I can or cannot have.

It is called freedom of choice. That is part of the DNA of the U.S. from it's inception.

If this issue, at least in the U.S., was TRUELY about healthcare for the homeless/poor, we'd have a plan that cover them and left the rest of us alone!!

The reality is the issue is control. Gov't control, 'know best' gov't control. Centralized gov't control. That is the road to the end of the U.S. as it was. Thanks but no thanks....

a reply to: nwtrucker

You have no choices about paying state taxes providing police, fire departments, road maintenance, refuse collection etc, why not health care exactly?

Do you then also advocate that a US citizen should have freedom to choose their own fire department insurance company, and if they have no cover it is their choice to watch their house burn down?

...how about the Coastguard search and rescue? Taxes fund that. Do you advocate that you should be able to opt out of taxes funding the Coastguard search and rescue teams if say you live inland?

Far too many holes in your freedom of choice argument as far as I see it.

a reply to: Flatfish

In large part, I agree with you. Social programs were and are part of our culture. As you say basic education, local services, etc.

Social responsibility/consciousness is vastly different from 'Socialism'. Largely one is a self-assumed responsibility the other an enforcement.

To cut to the chase, 70% of the U.S. doesn't want socialized medicine. Period. That's a far higher number than just the 'right'.Yes?

The fact is a program/coverage that takes care of those without proper coverage/insurance can be created that doesn't enforce limitations or take any options from the rest of us. In other words, allows us the kind of coverage we prefer. CHOICE. FREEDOM.

The ACA is nothing more than the usual partnership between big business and Gov't to enforce control and profit.

Choice allows for the concept of competition. In pricing, quality of service, bigger or better, lesser of cheaper. My call. Your call.

That's the point you miss....or ignore.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Oh I do see where you are coming from, I just don't get it.
I suppose it's like CrazyEwok said earlier, just a deeply ingrained cultural thing. I simply can't imagine people struggling to get healthcare and drugs solely because of income. It sounds inhumane to me but hey, not my problem.

A millionaire and a homeless person would be treated equally in the UK, perhaps you find that abhorrent, but I don't.
I hope you get the healthcare system you wish for, I'll leave you to the thread now, I'd just be trollishly repeating myself if I continued.

...I am so glad I am not poor in the US though, and call it hyperbole if you like, but then you are also calling hyperbole on the many tragic stories of ATS members I've read over the years where folk are unable to pay for their ongoing medication.
Perhaps you think they are lying?
We don't have common stories like that coming from UK, or even European members. That says a lot to me, but hey, what do I know.

a reply to: Flatfish

I can only get supplemental coverage. NOT any alternative to Medicare. That coverage kicks in on top of the Medicare coverage. It doesn't replace it.

The site directs you to Medicare...deliberately. Now that I've lost my company plan, my alternative is gone.

a reply to: grainofsand

If you believe a millionaire and a homeless person is treated equally anywhere....well, I have some property is the Florida everglades I could sell you. An investment property.....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: grainofsand

If you believe a millionaire and a homeless person is treated equally anywhere....well, I have some property is the Florida everglades I could sell you. An investment property.....

Urm...I have a millionaire friend who gets exactly the same treatment in NHS hospitals as I do, or homeless people do for that matter. I am not a millionaire myself of course lol
If you don't believe me then there is nothing more I can say, but that is the reality with health care provided by the NHS in the UK.

...as I said though, I'll leave you to the thread, the cultural gap between us is far too wide to find resolution.

a reply to: grainofsand

If he chose, your millionaire friend could go wherever he wants for medical services....

See any royalty in that hospital you refer to?.....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: grainofsand

If he chose, your millionaire friend could go wherever he wants for medical services....

See any royalty in that hospital you refer to?.....

Yeah but he doesn't need to, so he doesn't, and instead takes advantage of our fantastic free local NHS services. I actually know 3 millionaires who just use the NHS, again because they have seen no need to obtain private insurance.

And what has royalty got to do with anything? I'm against our constitutional monarchy because they live lives which ordinary people cannot even aspire to due to accident of birth. That, to me, is an example of a failing in the UK, but universal healthcare regardless of income? Yep, I'll take that every time.

Now I bid you my finest regards and hope your health care needs are as well met as mine are.

a reply to: crazyewok

My daughter STILL can't get her back fixed that she is in pain for constantly,there.
Your country apparently picks and chooses what to treat THAT is wrong on any level if the person is suffering.
I wouldn't say WE have it better but I would prefer to get treatment for the issues as they show up or have shown up.
Dr Carson suggested a 2000.00 a year govt subsidy payment beginning at a person's birth for a health account, I don't exactly know the particulars of it.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Your country apparently picks and chooses what to treat

Yep, maybe you heard about the UK's oldest woman getting a hip replacement a couple of weeks ago...
www.bbc.co.uk...

Britain's oldest person may have entered the record books again - by having a hip operation at 112 years old.
Surgeons say Gladys Hooper is probably the oldest person in the world to have had a hip replacement.
She is now recovering in hospital on the Isle of Wight.

Our system ain't perfect, but the only stories I have read on ATS about members who are unable to pay for ongoing medication are from the US.
It may hurt to accept it but your health care is crap for citizens who have no money.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: nwtrucker

The most obvious thought here is if the Dane's were unhappy about their economic/social model then they would vote to change it. That does not seem to be the case so I assume as a nation they are generally happy with things as they are.

Not everyone views quality of life and affluence determined by the shiniest new car and the ability to buy it by denying their citizens free health care. That is a uniquely US thing as far as I see it.
Me, I like the NHS in the UK, been fixed many times over the years. I'd pay an extra 5% in income tax if it was dedicated to improving free heathcare for my country folk...but then I'm not a right wing person from the US.

I think that in general it is our luck that we are allowed many political parties in Denmark.
Whe have a left wing, a right wing and the middle ground all represented in parliament.

And since we have free elections and the candidates AREN'T thaken from the richest people in the country, we actually have good representation.
Our unions are strong enough to balance things out quite nicely.

So when the right wing goverment have messed things up a bit we elect a left wing governement. And when they have gone too far we elect a right wing. And so on...

Yes we have 180% tax on new vehicles. And it bites.
I pay 38% income tax.
We pay 25% VAT on stuff we buy.

But the state has got to get money for running the country somehow.

But we don't pay extra to drive on motorways. Although we do pay toll on ONE bridge in the whole of Denmark.
And a toll on the connecting bridge between Denmark and Sweden (nope Sweden is not the capital of Denmark).

We don't pay extra for healtcare. We do have long time to wait for some procedures - often because of decreased funding.
We don't pay extra for retirement home.
We don't pay extra for anything.
Our educational system is free (tax paid) and we don't have to learn about creationism in science class.
Our libraries are free (tax-paid) because access to peer reviewed information is important and we all know that the internet is full of information and very little knowledge.

I own my house (just paid it out after 25 years of mortgages).
I own my car despite the 180%.
I owe no money to anyone.
We have my salary and my wife only works as a call-in when they are short staffed because of sickness or holiday.
We live quite comfortably.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

In the current debacle that is the ACA-I turned 65 three days ago- any major treatment expense automatically goes before what is politically labelled the "death committee" at age 67. They decide, based on the overall cost of the treatment and life-expectancy whether you merit that service.

No I do not have an option to private coverage. At my age, and I am required to use the ATA sited to prove coverage, I am sent to the Medicare site. I am not permitted private coverage options that I am aware of...believe it or not.

I would also disagree in that if I had private coverage that covered my serious illness, they'd cover that expense otherwise find themselves with a line of law-suits sitting at their doorstep.

Realize that the ACA is NOT socialized medicine. It is enforced private coverage....unless you reach senior status like myself. As each person gets to that age they are moved to Medicare with no further option.

I wont defend the ACA

Its a atrocity that has made a already crap US health system even worse.

I have freinds in the US who are in real bother due to the ACA . Infact one moved over to the UK as it was the final straw.

To be honnest I would not really hold the UK up as a system to adopt either. It might be far better than the US but it still has huge problems and would bankrupt the US. Hell its costing our nation of 70 million a fortune!

It would be better to look at France (as much as it pains me being a brit). Its ranks at the top in most categorys, provides good healthcare for all and is affordable.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: grainofsand

If he chose, your millionaire friend could go wherever he wants for medical services....

See any royalty in that hospital you refer to?.....

Actually yes. The royal family are known to use london NHS hospitals.

originally posted by: crazyewok

To be honnest I would not really hold the UK up as a system to adopt either. It might be far better than the US but it still has huge problems and would bankrupt the US. Hell its costing our nation of 70 million a fortune!

It would be better to look at France (as much as it pains me being a brit). Its ranks at the top in most categorys, provides good healthcare for all and is affordable.

Actually, the US health system is twice as expensive as the UKs. The French system is not as "free" as the UKs as employees pay health insurance and people are charged when they visit some consultants. The French system is a third more expensive than the UKs.

a reply to: HolgerTheDane2

Thanks for the response. Good information.

Sounds like your satisfied with your lot. A few clarifications, if you don't mind. Did you raise a family? What is you and your wife's profession? Where did you sit economically, middle class, middle-upper?

Believe it or not, at least medically, so were the majority of Americans! It is hard to compare from the frame of reference that I'm coming from.

Your response is more the direction I had hoped the thread would go. The medical issue is certainly the grey area of socialism. I actually was more directing to Gov't services- and what I and many Americans-see as control.....without choice or representation.

Certainly keeping an eye on one's representatives is going to be somewhat easier in a nation of 6 million. Far less diversity to contend with as well.

The basic premise of the U.S. as reflected by the Constitution is-sorry WAS reflected-restricting where and what the Federal gov't could go. Simply put stay out of my life. It's up to me or my community to make or break my life. All these people wanted was the opportunity for choice. That's all they asked for. The rest was up to them.

There is no question I could use less stress in my life from the usual survival issues. Gov't services free, deferred, or paid via direct taxes can make life easier. No question.

Yet the freedoms I have enjoyed for my 65 years are threatened/disappearing at an alarming rate. The kind of and quality of my medical coverage is an example.

We prefer to make our own mistakes rather than suffer gov't's mistakes.

I'm sure the concept of 'sovereign citizen' isn't largely known in Europe. Bah, I can't begin to cover the basic differences.

Don't misunderstand, the Danish, Swedes, etc. are generally held in high esteem in the U.S.. A good portion of our overall heritage comes from that 'neck of the woods'.

When it comes to health care, it needs to be agreed upon by the majority. Not foisted by a know-best socialist elite.

As far as creationism being taught in the schools. well, both premises are flawed, from where I stand. The problem is, Gov't prefers the big bangers as they prefer playing the role of 'God'. Deciding what is right, wrong, acceptable, unacceptable and generally engineer social views.

No thanks, I am more than capable of deciding that on my own.....