Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Socialised Healthcare - American Views Needed

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by sc2099
 


It's only stealing money from other's if most people don't want it. However, considering who's being voted into office and the fact that people are again looking towards progress, it's not stealing, it's winning an election and putting forth the policies they are expected to.

If you call that stealing, I can just as easily consider supply-side economics stealing from the 95% of American's whose taxes are raised from it.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]




posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Medical costs are admittedly ridiculously high in the Western world, hence the outsourcing of operations etc to India, where costs are a 1/3rd but of equal quality.

Naturally the bulk of costs surrounding healthcare go to the medical professionals. Material costs (ie medicine/ implants) will always be high due to the cost of development. For every drug that gets through, ten others will fail (at considerable cost to the company).

Hence artificially lowering the price of healthcare is impossible to do if quality is to be maintained. This is why the NHS uses sub-par implants.

With some sort of public backed medical overdraft facility, a person could choose which level of care to go for; in a free market environment. There would be providers catering to the lower end segments of the market (ie those presently on medicare/ medicaid). However there again market competition means only the most efficient and cheapest hospitals will survive, thereby meaning a better standard of care even on a budget.

A state run system leads to inefficiency and sub-par care. Under the NHS, just until a couple of weeks ago, patients on the NHS were not allowed to pay out of their own pocket to access a better quality of medication while being treated by NHS doctors (who are equally brilliant to their private counterparts).

The only other issue with this proposal, as you pointed out, is that people with chronic diseases will end up racking up huge debts. Here I am inclined to allow natural selection to take its course... I see no point in wider society being burdened by someone who is going to die anyway. If that seems uncaring, its because it is. There is no pragmatic justification for prolonging the life of someone with a chronic condition. As such there should probably be a limit cap on the overdraft account, set by medical professionals.

I am struck by your compassion for your compatriots. Having your hard earned money taken away from you willingly to pay for the treatment of someone you have to obligation to care for is a really strange idea to me. Do you have such love for all your countrymen? What about those who have brought their condition upon themselves? What about those who had the opportunity to be responsible for themselves but didnt want to take it? What about those who irresponsibly bring children into the world without being able to care for them? What about criminals?



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by sc2099

I totally 100% agree that the cost of treatment is the real problem with any medical system, public or private. If prices for treatment weren't ridiculously inflated due to the exhorbitant cost of malpractice insurance and student loans, not to mention the drug pushers, I mean drug reps, medical care would be affordable and socialized medicine would be a nonissue.

chickenshoes, I read where you said that you'd be willing to take some money out of your check to pay for your healthcare...but I'm confused. If you're willing to pay for your own healthcare, why do you want the rest of the tax base to chip in? If it's because the money you could set aside out of your own check isn't enough to cover the expense and you need to have others contribute so you can afford medical care, then I stand by my previous statement that that is stealing money from others.


Well, is it stealing then if you pay taxes in order for everyone to have police and fire protection, or for roads to be made safe for everyone to drive on?

Do you think that if someone makes less money than you that they are somehow less deserving of those services?


The fact is if you have insurance, your premiums are being driven up in part due to uninsured people. So, are those people stealing from you?


You know, I pay taxes so other people less fortunate than me can have food and a place to live and medical care. I don't resent them, in fact, I understand. Some people have come upon hard times through no fault of their own, and I am glad to help out. If it were you, I'd do the same.

But I don't accuse them of stealing from me. I never would.

I guess that's the difference between you and me.

And, socialized medicine may not be the answer, I've seen some good comments on both sides. But, the fact is that the whole thing is broken and needs serious reform. If it worked, then people wouldn't be without insurance and insurance companies would pay for treatment rather than weaseling out of it. My husband and I could find a policy that covered our needs that is affordable for us.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Medical costs are admittedly ridiculously high in the Western world, hence the outsourcing of operations etc to India, where costs are a 1/3rd but of equal quality.

Naturally the bulk of costs surrounding healthcare go to the medical professionals. Material costs (ie medicine/ implants) will always be high due to the cost of development. For every drug that gets through, ten others will fail (at considerable cost to the company).

Hence artificially lowering the price of healthcare is impossible to do if quality is to be maintained. This is why the NHS uses sub-par implants.

With some sort of public backed medical overdraft facility, a person could choose which level of care to go for; in a free market environment. There would be providers catering to the lower end segments of the market (ie those presently on medicare/ medicaid). However there again market competition means only the most efficient and cheapest hospitals will survive, thereby meaning a better standard of care even on a budget.

A state run system leads to inefficiency and sub-par care. Under the NHS, just until a couple of weeks ago, patients on the NHS were not allowed to pay out of their own pocket to access a better quality of medication while being treated by NHS doctors (who are equally brilliant to their private counterparts).

The only other issue with this proposal, as you pointed out, is that people with chronic diseases will end up racking up huge debts. Here I am inclined to allow natural selection to take its course... I see no point in wider society being burdened by someone who is going to die anyway. If that seems uncaring, its because it is. There is no pragmatic justification for prolonging the life of someone with a chronic condition. As such there should probably be a limit cap on the overdraft account, set by medical professionals.

I am struck by your compassion for your compatriots. Having your hard earned money taken away from you willingly to pay for the treatment of someone you have to obligation to care for is a really strange idea to me. Do you have such love for all your countrymen? What about those who have brought their condition upon themselves? What about those who had the opportunity to be responsible for themselves but didnt want to take it? What about those who irresponsibly bring children into the world without being able to care for them? What about criminals?


All good points. The biggest problem I see is how would you go about to set a cap on how much you can spend? I see some very tragic situations from this.

However, it seems you don't see it that way. Ah well, what can you do?

I suppose I could see what you're saying about people bringing things on themselves. I wouldn't necessarily want to pay for treatment for a formula one driver who gets themselves in a wreck.

But, who are you to judge who brought what on themselves? You can't know the personal circumstances of every single person who has utilized government help. Some may not deserve it, but some really do. I have no say in the government's criteria for choosing who gets help and who doesn't, so I must believe that it's helping someone who really needs it, and who may potentially make a difference some day.

Plus, it's not my place to judge my fellow man worthy or unworthy. All have a right to live, from my point of view. I've made mistakes, you've made mistakes, we all have and do. None are perfect, so why should one person or a group of people get to decide who's deserving of medical care and who's not. In a good many cases, it is a matter of life or death. What makes you or anyone else qualified to pick and choose who lives or dies?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if you tend to look at people as investments, and you would base your criteria for who receives treatment or not on what the return value would be? Problem is, some who in your estimation may not have a high rate of return now may very well at some point.



[edit on 11/13/2008 by chickenshoes]



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by chickenshoes
But, who are you to judge who brought what on themselves?


If its my money, Im damn sure I have a right to judge.

If forced to, I would shell out for people who have been affected by extraordinary bad luck.

Trauma (ie falling down, being stabbed etc), cancer, tropical diseases, genetic conditions etc are all contracted without the fault of the patient.

I would hate to be forced to pay for : Heart disease if brought on by obesity, diabetes if brought on by obesity, cancer if brought on by smoking etc etc. Frankly if someone else wants to willingly pump tar into their own lungs and then force me to pay the bill, I dont really care if they die or not. It is noteworthy that at the moment I am being forced to pay for this as I live in the UK, and under the NHS anything is treated... even if brought on. As it stands, the NHS pays people to stop smoking. Since I am a taxpayer, I am effectively having to pay someone else to stop taking poison. This is ****ing retarded isnt it? How is that fair?



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


Well, like I said, I guess that's you and I have my own opinion.

I do see what you're saying.

I would hope that paying folks to quit smoking now would save a lot of money in the long run, but yeah, I understand.

I'm sure you have probably at some point or do now eat unhealthy foods, or whatever. I mean, is your life so squeaky clean and boring that you never have or don't now do anything at all that could potentially shorten your life?

Oh, but I guess you must pay for private insurance, right? So it doesn't matter then. You can do as you like.

Shoot, you could walk out the front door today and get hit by a bus. Does that mean that if you are contributing to NHS for people who leave their house every day that they are being irresponsible by opening the front door, and you are going to resent them being hit by a bus because they had the unmitigated gall to try to go to work or the store, or wherever?

Hey, I said before, I don't have all the answers. Insurance is expensive, and you get very little. You seem rather unconcerned about the fact that they don't pay out, and even with your idea, we still come back to the same ole' same ole, "not on my dime" and " they're stealing from me".

What if you were given the option to opt out by the government, and only the folks who would utilize NHS would be the ones paying into it. That way, it isn't your problem any more?


I know that you have said that everyone who doesn't make enough money to purchase private health insurance should get off their asses and better their situation. Another poster said that the average middle class salary is somewhere around 2-300k per year.

The fact of the matter is that this is not the case. The average joe in the average job does not make that much.

I went to school to be a vet tech. You want to know what the average joe vet tech makes in the US? $13.00/hr. That's it, some a little more, some a little less. It tops out at around $17.00/hr (35k per year), if you're lucky enough to get a job in a specialty clinic. So average yearly pay is 27,040, gross. That's not net, again, that's gross. Most vets don't provide insurance, or like mine, they do but look for reasons for their employees not to qualify.

The biggest part of the average joe jobs in this country are ones that keep our infrastructure together, garbage men, waste water plants, police, firemen.

Then you have me, the vet tech, and other medical professionals. Shoot, even an RN only makes 50k to start. And working as a medical professional doesn't guarantee that you'll get good insurance, either. I have a friend who's a nursing technician, and she can't afford insurance through the hospital she works for. Now doesn't something seem wrong with that?

So, think about it. All those folks in service jobs that you rely on, not making enough to purchase insurance. And yet you have suggested that they abandon their jobs and get better ones. Well, someone has to do those jobs, otherwise folks like you would be SOL, right? So even if they better their situation, there's still going to be someone taking their place, doing that job because there has to be.

So, it's not as simple a situation as you'd like to make it.

Again, I like your idea, and like I said, what if you could opt out of your program so you don't have to pay for those you consider unworthy?







[edit on 11/14/2008 by chickenshoes]

[edit on 11/14/2008 by chickenshoes]

[edit on 11/14/2008 by chickenshoes]



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 
We desperately need socialize health care in America.

My niece goes to Sorbonne University and has lived in Paris the past several years. She is now engage to a French man. They love the health care there. Once they marry she will remain in France because she says France really cares about it's citizens vs America.

American's have been brain washed into believing that every man for himself is the way to go. We are still saddled with that rough tough cowboy mentality.

They don't realize that we are all in this together.

We allow our elite rich to hide their wealth in "tax loopholes" and yet deny medical care to now over 49 million people.

Our government has allowed and even encouraged big Corporations to take their businesses overseas where labor is cheaper and in turn causing massive layoffs and home forclosures.

Most American's simply read the newspaper and watch Fox News and believe this is enough to educate them how to vote. This is how we got such a moron as GWB in the White House for eight years.

Our new media is a sham, it is owned operated and run by a handful of the wealthiest individuals on the planet. It's nothing more then a propaganda machine.

I'm hoping with our new President this will change but President Obama has a hell of a mess to clean up after eight years of the chaos GWB and his administration has wrought upon our country.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by vapedson
 
I was in nursing and a patient came in. He was a young man bleeding internally from a car accident.

No, he wasn't worked on he was transferred to county because he didn't have insurance. This young man died en route to the county hospital.

I held his hand right before they loaded him up in the ambulance. it was evident to me he would not last the 12 miles.

Here in America your health care is currently determined by how much money / insurance coverage you have.

Now, transfer that to what if that had been your son, your brother or your father.

Most people claim to be empathic but in reality aren't unless this poop happens to them or their family.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by ofhumandescent]



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


Again. If policy changes, it's not stealing and you don't have a right. People don't have a right to not pay higher taxes when Bush raised them, and you won't have the right to not pay higher taxes if socialized health care is implemented.

It is not stealing, it is not fraud, it's new policy. And while you will pay higher taxes, you can enjoy your extremely cheap new health care policy.



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by chickenshoes
 


Absolutely I would support such a system which is opt-in rather than mandatory.

That would however lead to inferior healthcare for the poor. I suppose that poor quality care is better than no care.

But such a system wouldn't work anyway. The poor wouldn't be able to contribute enough to the system, and their usage of the system would be disproportional to how much they pay in. Basically the UK gov't will never allow opting out because the rich pay into the system without using it.

I have private medical cover, yet I still have to pay into the NHS. Of course I would have no objection to a socialised healthcare model as long as I don't have to pay into it.



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


Well, could you tell me why you wouldn't use it?

What are the advantages of you having private insurance as opposed to NHS?

And, how much are you required to pay in?

I don't know about where you are, but from what I've seen in the US, Medicaid is pretty darn good. Although, I don't know how high and dry they would leave a person should they develop some chronic illness which would require long months of expensive treatment.

The only problem is that Medicaid is for only the very poor. It doesn't take into account all the people like me and my husband who work very hard but still can't afford insurance for themselves.



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 



That would however lead to inferior healthcare for the poor. I suppose that poor quality care is better than no care.


I am glad you realize the last part.


The poor wouldn't be able to contribute enough to the system, and their usage of the system would be disproportional to how much they pay in. Basically the UK gov't will never allow opting out because the rich pay into the system without using it.


The rich will always pay the brunt of everything. I suppose that is a consequence of having all of the money.

However, a small increase in taxes on the lower and middle classes taxes would be a huge jump in tax revenue for the government (since there are so many of them).

It is irrelevant because it has got to be done. People need to get basic health care and basic medications for free. If you want anything beyond that, then yes, pay extra. That makes sense, and it would allow taxes to remain lower.

Another key point is that medical staff cannot take large pay cuts. There must remain an incentive to go to med school for 25 years.



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 



The rich will always pay the brunt of everything. I suppose that is a consequence of having all of the money.
BS The problem is with all the tax loop holes the rich aren't paying their fair share.

What the hell planet do you live on Irish? Do you even know what is really going on?




WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline. Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.

Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years.

Economists and tax analysts have long known that the biggest dollar value of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts goes to people at the very top income levels. One reason is that two of his signature measures, tax cuts on investment income and a steady reduction of estate taxes, overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest households.


Above text taken from this site:
www.nytimes.com...

You are either one of the elite "at the top" or a really uneducated person the Bush Administration is taking advantage of. Talk about kissing the hand that is slapping you.

WAKE UP.

PS: I paid less in taxes last year then my cleaning lady because I was able to get a nice tax break on acquiring addition property.



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ofhumandescent
 


Walmart paid around 12 billion in taxes last quarter.

Walmart Financial Statements
Total Revenue: 101,598.00

Total Tax: 1,826

That's about 1.7% of their total revenues.

Their profit margin is 3.4%. That's not bad for a giant company like Walmart. They make money for one reason:

Economies of scale. The more they produce, the cheaper it becomes, and the more they can undercut the competition. Also, it allows them more long-term debt.

Long story short, they pay a lot of money - and the brunt of taxes. Whether you think they still should pay more because they find loopholes, that's a different story. Maybe you're right, but they are still paying a LOT of taxes.



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



I am also a UK citizen who thinks the NHS is a great thing - it could be run alot better - but it is great non the the less.

I was talkinfg to someone who Lived in America for a 10 years, he had hius children there. His fiest child was bourne premeturely and needed to stay in hospital for 3 months. The bill came, it was 250,000 dollars - put it into perspective - a quarter of a million dollars. Luckily he was with a Major Company and his medical insurance through them paid for this. In the UK you would not have a bill. We pay our taxes and part of that tax goes towards funding the NHS, when we do need to get medicine, due to the NHS our bills are subsidised and so costs us roughly 8 great british pounds per perscription. If you are out of work, pregnant it is free. Contraceptives of most kinds are also free anf freely available.

If howver you do wish to go private, you can. You just have to join an asscociation like Bupa and pay monthly. Please note - many private doctors and surgeons in the private sector are the very same that perform your NHS surgery. The advantage is you are que jumping and get to stay in a posh hospital/clinic.



,

[edit on 15-11-2008 by MCoG1980]



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by MCoG1980
 


Good to hear! That's the great thing about ATS for me, it's not just Americans here so people in other countries can keep the lies in check.

I'll trust the word of someone in the UK over stories told by Americans about the UK any day.

[edit on 15-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 


Thanks - i just made an edit so the truth is now outthere ;o)

I think the only worry that you need have is those who abuse the system, both in the proffesional field and that of the patients too. Wherever you gi the the world there are people who try to spoil it for the rest of the population. These people are usually brought out into the open. No-one like a cheat. We are a very fortunate nation - oh buy the way NHS incudes Denists too! There was recently an outcry due to the lack of NHS dentists - greedy practices going private. Its improved alot since then - our voices matter! If you require councilling, say you have hhad a traumatic event ect, or if you are suffering from abuse or depresion. You can get cuncilling with medical professionals with experience in that field who's OBLIGATION it is to get you on the path to recovery. I can personally vouch for this and have received this treatment myself, without this help i am not sure how sane i would be right now. Thanks NHS. Good Ol Blighty ;o)



[edit on 15-11-2008 by MCoG1980]

[edit on 15-11-2008 by MCoG1980]



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I'm an Australian Critical Care RN and I also used to be a National Manager for one of Australias leading private health insurance funds.
Now I live in the US.
I would choose public health care over private anyday, I think the care level is far superior. Well it was when I worked in it anyway.

Socialised medicine is fantastic WHEN it is supplemented with adequate support systems.
In Australia socialised medicine pays for 24hr clinics which are widely available for all and easily accessible. This cuts down dramatically on needless visits to the ER. Most people also use these services as GPs.

Socialised medicine is available to all, however you can still have private health insurance.
Or, if you don't want to wait for non emergency surgery, you can pay your own out of pocket expenses for elective procedures done in a Private Hospital. Services cost about the same without insurance, as with insurance here in the US.
At least you do have a choice.

Private health insurance in Australia is NOTHING like the crap, confusing and expensive cover available in the US.
Private insurance funds have agreements and contracts with hospitals that decide what amounts will be payable and chargeable to patients so you know exactly the amount you will be out of pocket for all services
(usually your deductible and co-payments as per your coverage).
In serious emergencies most people still use public ER's - better treatment.

I have been nothing but disgusted here in the US with outrageous bill after bill arriving at ridiculous prices, long after I paid my co-payments. Often several bills with differing amounts for the same service.
Bills are turned over to collection agencies at an alarming rate, sometimes before the first bill even arrives.
When I queried the charges, both my private health insurers and hospitals responses were that it wasn't their problem anymore, they had already turned them over to the collections agency. So much for customer service.

I wish I had a choice.
The only choice available here is have insurance and suck it up or take a risk and go without.

Until the health care system has a major overhaul and somebody somehow can effectively deal with the overinflated prices passed on to consumers, and put care back into health care, it'll stay the same.
The outrageous prices for drugs charged here versus the rest of the world, pretty much confirms that the inflated prices in the US has to be cross subsidisation for the rest of the world.
There is no reason why standard health care in the US should cost 10 times or more than the rest of the world.
Nobody wants to fix the underlying problems in the existing system first, cause it's just too damn hard.
Too many egos involved and parge powerful corporations with cash cows that have been allowed to prosper.

While I have nothing but good things to say about socialised medicine, fact is this country just can't afford it.

Not without serious unpopular reforms and implementation of a massive support system. The infrastructure just isn't there.
And someone will need balls of steel to even think about dealing with the AMA.
Hmm, maybe Obama should give health care to Hillary...



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I don't think greed is good works in all cases. The system whether socialized or privatized will be "gamed" regardless. Lately the "gaming" has been primarily the greedy corporations in the US. Can you imagine 1 man at a health insurance company made 324 million over 5 years! For WHAT! Fighting with me over claims!

It's insurance for crying out loud what makes him worth that much money???? There are almost 50 million people without healthcare in the US! He probably thinks he's underpaid!

WebMD

...Based on this, the next time you want to argue with your Primary Care doctor's front desk about a $5.00 co-pay, remember that he makes an average of $149,000.00 per year. On the other hand -- using United Healthcare as an example -- your insurance company paid their CEO -- one man -- $324,000,000 over a recent five year period.

If you are uninsured, try calling any one of these 23 CEOs and see if they will give you free insurance.

BTW: 10% of 14.9 billion is 1.4 billion. If basic insurance costs $8,000/year for a family then taking 10% from just these CEO salaries would insure 35,000 Americans a year for five years. That is a lot of people that can be helped just by 23 men. Looking at the companies as a whole that profit from health care, we can probably pay for every uninsured person in this country for decades to come.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by chickenshoes
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


Well, could you tell me why you wouldn't use it?


Sure. There are two simple reasons:

1. The waitlists are ridiculous. The NHS surgery waitlist period for an acquaintance of mine who had a heart attack was 6 weeks. He would have had to lay in a hospital bed for 6 weeks if he had to use the NHS. On private it was finished in 2 days. Of course in his case it wasn't really a hard decision, as the salary he would have lost over 6 weeks far exceeded the cost of the operation on private medical.

2. The implant qualities are highly sub-par. The same friend was prescribed non-eluting stents on the NHS as they are cheaper. Non-eluting stents are about 70% more likely to cause clots at the plasty site. On private, he was given stellium alloy eluting stents... the highest quality possible.

There are also other problems like MRSA, general uncleanliness of wards etc.

The surgeon and surgical team were exactly the same... they would have done the operation in 6 weeks time on the NHS. So really going private helped my friend shorten his time in hospital, and offered greatly reduced odds of clots or catching a superbug like MRSA (+ a nice bed in a 5* hospital instead of a general ward).



What are the advantages of you having private insurance as opposed to NHS?


Pretty much the two main reasons outlined above. There is no insurance per se... its a subscription to a private medical organisation (BUPA).



And, how much are you required to pay in?


Personally since I have no history of illness, my premium is pretty low. I pay a couple of hundred pounds a month. From what I've heard of the US system, perhaps this is where the problem is... the costs are stupidly high. Perhaps its not the system that is broken, but the healthcare costs in general are too high in your country. Going the socialized route will not really solve this, itll just mean that someone else has to pay for it.



I don't know about where you are, but from what I've seen in the US, Medicaid is pretty darn good. Although, I don't know how high and dry they would leave a person should they develop some chronic illness which would require long months of expensive treatment.


Medicaid is OK, but their "DRG" status and coding classes mean that the best treatments are off the table. Its similar to the NHS... sub-par when compared to private medical. Remember, these are not just "brand name" drugs... the implants are tangibly better under private medical.



The only problem is that Medicaid is for only the very poor. It doesn't take into account all the people like me and my husband who work very hard but still can't afford insurance for themselves.


It sounds like you're in the void between being reliant on the state and being self-reliant. I think the system that would most benefit you would be to be able to pay a small levy to join the Medicaid system. That would be affordable in the short term and allow you to become self-reliant and go fully private in the long term.






top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join