It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


N H S and the American health bill ?

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 04:30 PM
I Hope you will excuse me for sounding ignorant,but this United states of America health care bill that president Obama is trying to pass sounds very similar to our British National health service.which helps the very poor but also the middle class.Plus we can if we want to, go there a great difference between the two policies??

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 07:58 PM
Obama's proposed health program is modelled on the British NHS system. We are going to become governed by the same powers correct? I just read an article about NHS pain patients that might be denied their cortisone shots to save the NHS system 33 million pounds annually. The patients whose quality of life relies on these shots are frantic.

It is probably cheaper for the government to place a patient on oxycodone or another generic pain drug than it is to administer the cortisone shot (but I doubt it-cortisone is cheap). However, it is not better for the patient who can't tolerate pain drugs, and who doesn't like the 'high' feeling of pain meds. Next, the NHS will deny those people services to deal with their addiction to pain meds. Not a good solution.

America already has socialized health's called Medicare and Medicaid. It would be better to extend the current program to the poor and lower middle class, then to come up with a more complicated, inefficient and substandard system.

For those living in England, what do you think of your health care, and what people subscribe to NHS?

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:12 AM
The plan is to create a public health insurance program that is subsidized by tax dollars.

This public plan will be priced cheap, since it has the unlimited funds of government behind it.

Since it will be cheaper than private insurance, it will destroy the private insurance market leaving only one or two expensive private care insurance companies in operation. The bill also seeks to prevent private insurance companies from obtaining new contracts and seeks to implement massive adminstrative cost overhead through electronic record keeping, the goal of which is to eliminate privacy protections.

Essentially the bill proposed seeks to recreate the exact same system as the UK where the privileged class retain their private insurance while the bulk of the masses are placed on a government program. This will occur naturally due to the manipulation of market forces by the government.

Of course, the exact same results can be expected.

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:23 AM
reply to post by lostviking

Iam a UK citizen,and really don't see the difficulty .Our health service does have some problems,cheaper medicines over brand names that probably work better. Before the credit crunch you could get treatment reasonably quickly for serious problems like cancer,if there was the possibility of life threatening diseases,you were usually seen within a couple of weeks,and operated on within another two or three weeks.

There is talk now of long delays for non serious operations,and post code lottery for essential drugs that can prolong your life.

But back in the forties ,you had to pay for everything!You had to rely on caring doctors who would be prepared to wait for payment,and that in instalments (cannot see that happening now )

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:44 AM
What Canadians and Brits fail miserably to understand is that we in the US have a supposed uninsured population of 45 million. That is almost the entire population of both your countries. Almost 35 million and 60 million respectively. How on Earth are we as Americans going to provide NHS level of care cheaper to 45 million people without deficit spending or increases in taxes? This is why most Americans are against universal healthcare and why our politicians are idiots for comparing our country to Europe or Canada. Plus we have a huge illegal immigrant population that right now is unstoppable thanks to our open borders. Canada does not have as big of a problem and well England is an Island.

It is even more laughable to compare the US to Scandinavian countries like Norway who have even smaller populations and vast amounts of income based on the sale of oil. Another privilege the US is lacking.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by Zosynspiracy]

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:57 AM
as a Brit, I am so thnkful to the NHS I have had cancer for 8 years and the care and treatment i have recieved from day one has been 2nd to none. ok I didn't get my own room after surgery like private patients, but I believe i was given the same standard of surgical treatment. I would be dead without the NHS as we could never have afforded the surgery, treatment options and medications, all free of charge.

I was 23 when diagnosed so have been in the system for over 8 years now. Its one of those things you wont fully appreciate until your ill.

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:00 PM
Obama is more or less aiming for the French or Germany model, not the British National Health Service. Might I add, France has the best health care system in the world so it would be a wise choice to implement.

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:10 PM
reply to post by Zosynspiracy

I think the difference between whats being proposed as the US NHS and our (UK) NHS is the way that taxation to provide the service is applied.

Here, we pay National Insurance which is out health-tax and just a small percentage is deducted at source from your paycheck every week/month making it barely noticeable, as opposed to paying income taxes and the like in one lump sum at the end of the financial year.

I actually see the US insurance and medical system as almost barbaric in the way it discriminates on how healthy your wallet is, whereas here, if you need treatment, you can walk into any GP surgery or emergency ward and get the treatment you need regardless of income or status (it may not be the best treatment but it works) The most you have to pay for anything is £7.20 to get a prescription filled

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:11 PM
reply to post by infinite

What is the difference between french ,and English health care,must admit i have never looked into different health care schemes .

Its surprising what you learn at Above Top Secret!

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:13 PM
reply to post by infinite

See this is the kind of crap I'm talking about. Always comparing Europe to America. France's cost of healthcare is growing faster than it's economy. THIS IS FACT! Just do the research especially considering their rate of unemployment and their state of economy. Their system is ready to implode. Also most workers give 50% of their paychecks towards healthcare. You think America's middle class is suffering............France practically has no middle class. With a tumbling economy here in the US it will wreak havoc on our country and the only way to pay for it will be skyrocketing taxes and deficit spending. Sorry but France is a terrrible example of socialized medicine.

And it was a Utah hospital that was ranked BEST IN THE WORLD not A FRENCH ONE! Do the research!

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:19 PM
reply to post by Taikonaut

You're still not talking into account that we in America have a population of uninsured sitting at 45 million. That is almost the entire population of your entire NATION. Of those 45 million there is a large number that are illegal. Also of that 45 million there is a large number that can actually afford health insurance but choose to buy Apple I-Phones and things they don't need instead of buying health insurance. So maybe we have an uninsured population of half that........around 25 million. Seems like a huge waste of time and energy to revamp an entire system so that 25 million can have the same coverage as everyone else. I say pump more money into medicaid and medicare and extend those systems to the uninsured........also make them more efficient and more fiscally responsible.

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
the only way to pay for it will be skyrocketing taxes and deficit spending.

Or lobby your govt to get the medical insurance companies and pharaceutical companies to invest the huge profits made into such a scheme

And it was a Utah hospital that was ranked BEST IN THE WORLD not A FRENCH ONE! Do the research!

Why does it have to be biggest/bestest/fastest? Just one where you can be treated for your ailment is enough

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:29 PM
rationing of dental care in the UK

fertility treatment, plastic surgery and operations for varicose veins and minor childhood ailments to be rationed

caesarean births rationed

etc.. etc.. etc..

Socialist healthcare is evil. It places the government in charge of who gets care and who does not.

The government will always chose to treat working age adults first because they provide a source of tax revenue. The old and the very young are the last on the list to receive rationed care.

Treatments that are not necessary to maintain a person in "working" condition are also cut.

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:53 PM
reply to post by Zosynspiracy

So, the WHO and the United Nations are lying on their health care figures then? Never knew a hospital in Utah represented the entire health care system of the United States..

Judging by your comments, I'd be worried about the state of the American education system. Lacking the funding after reading your post

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:10 PM
reply to post by infinite

Judging by your blind faith in the WHO and UN I would have to question your intelligence.

To say the French have the best healthcare in the world is a lie. My point was that if a Utah Hospital can be named best hospital in the world it's obvious the French do not have the best healthcare in the world. No one hospital is not indicative of the entire US healthcare system. It was an example.

top topics


log in