Apparently the Canadian system is slightly more friendly than the NHS, at least that's what I've heard. Though our system still needs some work, we could definately use some better funding and a VERY intelligently designed two tier system of both private and public health care (A two tier system probably won't work unless it's developed by some REALLY smart people, like a crack team of economists, lawyers, psychologits, sociologists and doctors)

I actually intentionally stay away from the Doctors, unless i really need to go. I haven't been for many years, and i never go for a cold (up to a point).

But the UK is getting quite hypochondriac really, so for my abstinence there is always someone willing to use that space.

Ranooth:

rossatdi:
Free! Go socialism.(UK)

HIGH FIVE!

Hell yeah.
Although it needs a bit of work, it's still preferable to the 'survival of the richest idea'.

Free!

I find the Canadian system to be pretty good; they're really on the ball for life-threatening and emergent stuff. There are some issues with chronic care and prescriptions, and of course with all the emphasis on critical medicine elective procedures tend to take a long time to go through, but overall we're alright.

(Anecdotally, most of the surgical procedures on people I know (relatives and friends) tended to get moved up on the calendar, especially cardiac valve repair and pacemaker implantation. The exception is joint replacement... I guess we don't have enough specialists in that field.)

The nursing care shortage could be problematic in the future, but still I like our single-payer insurance system a lot.

-- Steve

hypothetical fact:
What experiences do you have with yours and how do you feel about it in general? I propose this question because I recently found out that my ingrown toenail surgery is on a waiting list set for four years and isn't moving. So yeah Australia's healthcare system is non-existant how is yours?

Xaryn Mar:
There must be a lot of people with ingrown toenail in Australia then :) Seriously though, the probable reason for the long waiting list is that it is not a serious condition (I know it might feel serious but compared to many other ailments of the feet it isn't) and more serious cases are being but in before you. Perfectly reasonable.

No not perfectly reasonable! Here in good old Tennessee you would wait maybe a week tops with a day or two more likely.
And I just pay 150 a month for insurance. I hope to God we don't go free healthcare, and if we do then have private hospitals that just take cash patients.

Hevoo:

Still 50 million Americans without healthcare, in the riches most powerful nation on earth......Irony?

No. It's just a matter of priorities.

Hevoo:

Najos:
Don't really have one here in the States. However, if you're going to die you can just go to a hospital and they have to treat you. Then you just never pay!

Edit: I CHOOSE not to have health insurance. I could easily afford it (my employer offers is super cheap), but I'm very much against the concept of paying someone just in case. I wouldn't have auto insurance if it weren't required by law now. That's what is really bullshit. The gov't requires us to have auto insurance, but doesn't bother to offer it up or anything.

Safe then sorry, and if you can pay for it they will make you.

Also auto Insurance, you are getting something out of it, the govt lets you drive....Driving is not a right.

Just because your parents told you it was a "privilege" doesn't mean it actually is. There's numerous court cases throughout our history where driving was considered a right. There's also numerous court cases where it is considered a privilege. The problem is that States are aiming for it to be a licensed privilege because it helps them. Now imagine if you had to have a license to ride a bicycle. Or skate. Or jog. Why not, right? You're using their roads, after all.

Edit: I'll admit that's a little extreme, but I'm just trying to illustrate the point behind it all. What makes driving so different from riding a bike?

Baonec:

rossatdi:

Doug:

rossatdi:
Free! Go socialism.(UK)

Free but not well organised nor done.

I'd debate that. If you get sick, you get treated. That's a lot more than a lot of countries.

No if you get sick you go to be treated but then end up with MRSA or another type of superbug.

Almost everyone I know has been treated for something and yet none of them have caught this MRSA you and the daily mail speak of..

Najos:

Edit: I CHOOSE not to have health insurance. I could easily afford it (my employer offers is super cheap), but I'm very much against the concept of paying someone just in case. I wouldn't have auto insurance if it weren't required by law now. That's what is really bullshit. The gov't requires us to have auto insurance, but doesn't bother to offer it up or anything.

You don't understand how insurance works.
It's not paying someone just in case.

Why do you think the rich have insurance?
It's not because they would be screwed once something happens (they could easily afford it).
It's because they know it's cheaper in the long run.

sneakypenguin:

No not perfectly reasonable! Here in good old Tennessee you would wait maybe a week tops with a day or two more likely.
And I just pay 150 a month for insurance. I hope to God we don't go free healthcare, and if we do then have private hospitals that just take cash patients.

Would it be reasonable that a case of ingrown toenail (who had waited perhaps a week) would get in before someone who needed restorative surgery in the foot and who had waited just as long?. I think not. Ingrown toenails hurt but is not critical.

And what if people can't afford to go to the hospital? Should they then just live with the ailment? Privatisation of the hospital system is not the way to go.

Xaryn Mar:

sneakypenguin:

No not perfectly reasonable! Here in good old Tennessee you would wait maybe a week tops with a day or two more likely.
And I just pay 150 a month for insurance. I hope to God we don't go free healthcare, and if we do then have private hospitals that just take cash patients.

Would it be reasonable that a case of ingrown toenail (who had waited perhaps a week) would get in before someone who needed restorative surgery in the foot and who had waited just as long?. I think not. Ingrown toenails hurt but is not critical.

And what if people can't afford to go to the hospital? Should they then just live with the ailment? Privatisation of the hospital system is not the way to go.

Hmm not quite sure how it works in your country, but where I live we have enough docs to where both can get treatment.
As far as people not being able to afford it I kind of find this to be a myth(to an extent) I work retail just an hourly job and I can afford healthcare. For those that can't even do that there is medicare, state healthcare etc.
I get tired of people saying "o its to expensive" as they text on their iPhone at work(true). It's a matter of priorities do you want healthcare or luxuries. I personally take responsibility for my own well being and take care of healthcare myself.
Increased demand+same supply=shortage

Anyone who doesn't know the big issues and says they hate our country (The UK) want to take a look at how lucky we are to get free healthcare.

I yell at anyone who says our healthcare is shit. They don't have a right to it, our government and the NHS are civilised enough to give us this, one of the most important free amenities you could possibly hope for.

And I hate the way it's abused by drunken idiots.

SunoffaBeach:

You don't understand how insurance works.
It's not paying someone just in case.

Why do you think the rich have insurance?
It's not because they would be screwed once something happens (they could easily afford it).
It's because they know it's cheaper in the long run.

Only IF something happens. So...yeah, it is just in case. It is only cheaper if something actually happens. Even then, it'd have to be something pretty serious. Now, if I had a bunch of kids I'd definitely have health insurance; but I don't. It is just me right now and if something actually happens, well, I'm fucked and I accept that.

Najos:
Edit: I'll admit that's a little extreme, but I'm just trying to illustrate the point behind it all. What makes driving so different from riding a bike?

About 3000lbs weight and 100mph top speed, give or take. Which means a LOT more energy, which means that you can do a lot more damage plowing into someone with a car than you can with a bike and there's a lot more risk of killing innocent bystanders when doing so.

There's no right to drive. There's no right to deprive you of the privilege of driving if you show the means to do so without being a hazard to everyone else (which includes supporting insurance as well as tests for adequate vision and reflexes and providing proof of training on how to operate your vehicle without turning it into a road-bound missile) but that's not the same as a right to drive.

-- Steve

sneakypenguin:

Hmm not quite sure how it works in your country, but where I live we have enough docs to where both can get treatment.
As far as people not being able to afford it I kind of find this to be a myth(to an extent) I work retail just an hourly job and I can afford healthcare. For those that can't even do that there is medicare, state healthcare etc.
I get tired of people saying "o its to expensive" as they text on their iPhone at work(true). It's a matter of priorities do you want healthcare or luxuries. I personally take responsibility for my own well being and take care of healthcare myself.
Increased demand+same supply=shortage

People get treated. It might just take longer before they do than if they payed a private hospital.
I agree with you on those who bitch about the price if they can afford an Iphone etc. but there are very likely people that can't afford it (I don't know all the fact about it in the USA). Here everyone can get treatment, no matter their income. Of course this will be abused by some, but then again which system won't?

Anton P. Nym:

Najos:
Edit: I'll admit that's a little extreme, but I'm just trying to illustrate the point behind it all. What makes driving so different from riding a bike?

About 3000lbs weight and 100mph top speed, give or take. Which means a LOT more energy, which means that you can do a lot more damage plowing into someone with a car than you can with a bike and there's a lot more risk of killing innocent bystanders when doing so.

There's no right to drive. There's no right to deprive you of the privilege of driving if you show the means to do so without being a hazard to everyone else (which includes supporting insurance as well as tests for adequate vision and reflexes and providing proof of training on how to operate your vehicle without turning it into a road-bound missile) but that's not the same as a right to drive.

-- Steve

But if someone without the proper motor skills were to steer his bike into the middle of six lanes of traffic moving at 50 mph...what would happen then? My point is, why don't they test us for everything? Riding a bike can be very, very dangerous for people. Sure, it isn't as bad as a two ton truck or even a one ton sports car, but it still poses a serious threat to the safety of people.

Here's where you say something like, "Well, he shouldn't be riding a bike in the first place if he's that stupid."

free and awesome - dad gets free private healthcare for the family untill we move out - we keep it when we leave for university and when i join the RAF I get free medical and dental :P

Najos:

Anton P. Nym:

Najos:
Edit: I'll admit that's a little extreme, but I'm just trying to illustrate the point behind it all. What makes driving so different from riding a bike?

About 3000lbs weight and 100mph top speed, give or take. Which means a LOT more energy, which means that you can do a lot more damage plowing into someone with a car than you can with a bike and there's a lot more risk of killing innocent bystanders when doing so.

But if someone without the proper motor skills were to steer his bike into the middle of six lanes of traffic moving at 50 mph...what would happen then?

Around here he'd get arrested; bicycles aren't allowed on restricted-access highways here for just that reason.

My point was that if you bump into someone while riding a bike, it's far more likely that other guy will walk away than if you'd bumped into him in a car even if you were traveling at the same speed. The added mass and power makes cars far more dangerous than bikes, enough so that they're worth treating differently; for instance, mandating more training to reduce the number of accidents and requiring you carry insurance to cover damages to others in case you do cause an accident anyway. You have to set a threshold somewhere, and that threshold (again, around here anyway) is above "bike" and below "motorcycle". (I think mo-peds/scooters are licensed around here, with lower restrictions, but I'm not certain of that.)

-- Steve

galletea:

Ranooth:

rossatdi:
Free! Go socialism.(UK)

HIGH FIVE!

Hell yeah.
Although it needs a bit of work, it's still preferable to the 'survival of the richest idea'.

Wooo! yeah team UK ftw!
I should really get sick more often...

...that said our hospitals have had problems with MRSA, C dif and the rest. When you're over 18 you still have to pay for most dental work and there aren't many NHS dentists around now loads have gone private...but meh still good!

Anton P. Nym:

Najos:

Anton P. Nym:

Najos:
Edit: I'll admit that's a little extreme, but I'm just trying to illustrate the point behind it all. What makes driving so different from riding a bike?

About 3000lbs weight and 100mph top speed, give or take. Which means a LOT more energy, which means that you can do a lot more damage plowing into someone with a car than you can with a bike and there's a lot more risk of killing innocent bystanders when doing so.

But if someone without the proper motor skills were to steer his bike into the middle of six lanes of traffic moving at 50 mph...what would happen then?

Around here he'd get arrested; bicycles aren't allowed on restricted-access highways here for just that reason.

My point was that if you bump into someone while riding a bike, it's far more likely that other guy will walk away than if you'd bumped into him in a car even if you were traveling at the same speed. The added mass and power makes cars far more dangerous than bikes, enough so that they're worth treating differently; for instance, mandating more training to reduce the number of accidents and requiring you carry insurance to cover damages to others in case you do cause an accident anyway. You have to set a threshold somewhere, and that threshold (again, around here anyway) is above "bike" and below "motorcycle". (I think mo-peds/scooters are licensed around here, with lower restrictions, but I'm not certain of that.)

-- Steve

I see now that you're from Canada. Here it is illegal to ride anything below some certain CC on an interstate (or restricted highway, I guess is the same thing), but I can count at least 5 or 6 different roads that are six lanes and have speed limits of 50 mph or higher that a bike is perfectly legal on. Here, at least.

Ah, fuck it. You're right, I'm wrong. I was just arguing because I was bored. I've been awake long enough as it is and I don't think I can keep this up anymore.

carnkhan4:

Wooo! yeah team UK ftw!
I should really get sick more often...
...that said our hospitals have had problems with MRSA, C dif and the rest. When you're over 18 you still have to pay for most dental work and there aren't many NHS dentists around now loads have gone private...but meh still good!

That is a good point. NHS dentists are so hard to get. I have to go private there. Even that isn't too costly though.

Very few people are killed by people on bicycles, as accidents involving 10-kilo metal frames at 20 mph max are, while often painful, rarely fatal for anyone,with the possible exception of the rider. Driving is licensced because someone driving a half-ton of metal at 100 mph is often fatal for the driver, passangers, driver and passangers of the other vehicle and everyone else nearby, if the impact was particularly violent. Licenscing drivers is not a matter of equity, it'sa matter of ensuring the safety of the public, something that the free market can not do because there is absolutely no financial benifits to do so.

Most of the NHS's problems come from the shortage of trained staff, because, quite simply, government is not willing to spend that little bit extra on making their salaries comensurate with their training (nurses are defined not as skilled labour but as proffessionals, now- on a par with teachers, consultants and engineers in levels of training, but their pay is so often abysmal. Why? Two words: Market. Failure. We all want to be healthy, but it's rare that we're willing to pay for it unless we're forced. Which the British government does., and gains kudos for.

Another reason is that Mrs "Kill the working classes and sell their corpses as tinned meat" Thatcher's regime sold off a lot of the NHS's assests- assests that were quite often given in rust to the NHS under the proviso of caring. Withthe change inthe law, the conservatives appropriated these and sold them off, often to people who were friends, or business acquaitances. And thus, the NHS was fucked so hard that it's yet to recover.

Greedy? yeah greedy sums it up... what with all the health insurance company bullshit.

"Oh we see here on your form that you might develop cancer... Why? because your great great uncle on your father's side had it and died. So yeah... we aren't going to cover you. Also our genetic screening says you are at risk for heart disease... I don't care if you are 120 pound marathon runner, our genetic screening says you will probably develop heart disease."

I'd just like to point out that on Thursday, I was told by my GP I should have an MRI scan.

It's happening this Friday. FOR FREE!

NHS rules, accept it.

It bugs me no end the way the NHS gets abuse about its services.

We pay a tiny amount of tax to have free 24 service for emergencies, and 9-5 Mon - Fri access to Doctors and Nurses for lesser needs.

Some MRSA etc was found, unfortunately, then the Daily Mail finds out, and does a front page saying 'IMMIGRANT WORKERS SPREAD MRSA IN EVERY HOSPITAL' or 'GO TO HOSPITAL AND DIE!' when its a very minor risk and pretty was already dealt with before the news even broke.

Sure, there's bad doctors, bad hospital cleaners, dishonest nurses etc. That all comes from hiring humans. The vast majority of medical services in the UK are excellent for the amount we pay for them. Uncharacteristally positive post! I think I'll go search for a 'chav' topic to post on to get back to normal.

I am in favour of Jack Dee's system for the emergency wards in hospital, that your waiting time is based on how stupid you were being to get injured. 'I fell of a ladder' - not really your fault, be with you in 5 minutes. 'I got drunk, and got hit by a police car with my pants around my ankles' - quite stupid, sit there for an hour and think about it.

'I was vacuuming naked and fell forward onto the end of the hose and got..um..stuck' you sit there for 4 hours wedged in the end of the hoover while we call people out to look.

I'm American, All they tell us is that Government Health care is really bad up in Canada and over in Europe, So my question is, is it really a shitty system?

Hevoo:
I'm American, All they tell us is that Government Health care is really bad up in Canada and over in Europe, So my question is, is it really a shitty system?

'fraid not, but that won't stop up complaining about it...oh and with an aging population it may not work as well in the future...

Hevoo:
I'm American, All they tell us is that Government Health care is really bad up in Canada and over in Europe, So my question is, is it really a shitty system?

Yes.
But still better than no system at all.

Canada is free! Woo!

Which is really great because both myself and my dad would be dead without it, and my mom would be on disability.

People can rag on 'socialist' health care all they want, but I'd rather pay a pile of taxes and have the government pay for it, thanks.

SunoffaBeach:

Hevoo:
I'm American, All they tell us is that Government Health care is really bad up in Canada and over in Europe, So my question is, is it really a shitty system?

Yes.
But still better than no system at all.

We have a system, it just cost money.

And to the other guy, yeah Free Health care wouldn't work in the US, because we have 300,000,000 PEOPLE!!! Unlike 30,000,000 in canada, or 60million in the UK.

Canadian health care is really good. I don't think i've waited more then 40 mins at a walk-in clinic and i have drug coverage with my company so i'm pretty set. I just watched Sicko and i'm so so greatful for ohip and Canada's socialized health care!

Baby Tea:
Canada is free! Woo!

Which is really great because both myself and my dad would be dead without it, and my mom would be on disability.

People can rag on 'socialist' health care all they want, but I'd rather pay a pile of taxes and have the government pay for it, thanks.

yeah thats right I only have like 30% taxes, you have like 70%.

No sale tax down here, at least where I live. :P

Hevoo:

SunoffaBeach:

Hevoo:
I'm American, All they tell us is that Government Health care is really bad up in Canada and over in Europe, So my question is, is it really a shitty system?

Yes.
But still better than no system at all.

We have a system, it just cost money.

And to the other guy, yeah Free Health care wouldn't work in the US, because we have 300,000,000 PEOPLE!!! Unlike 30,000,000 in canada, or 60million in the UK.

The more people pay for a particular insurance, the better it works and the cheaper it gets for each individual person.
This is something that also works for leasing companies, for example.

If you ask me, you guys could easily have the best healthcare system in the whole world BECAUSE you are such a big country.

SunoffaBeach:

Hevoo:

SunoffaBeach:

Hevoo:
I'm American, All they tell us is that Government Health care is really bad up in Canada and over in Europe, So my question is, is it really a shitty system?

Yes.
But still better than no system at all.

We have a system, it just cost money.

And to the other guy, yeah Free Health care wouldn't work in the US, because we have 300,000,000 PEOPLE!!! Unlike 30,000,000 in canada, or 60million in the UK.

The more people pay for a particular insurance, the better it works and the cheaper it gets for each individual person.
This is something that also works for leasing companies, for example.

If you ask me, you guys could easily have the best healthcare system in the whole world BECAUSE you are such a big country.

You clearly don't know American Politics.

We are a conservative nation, alot of people, like 55 million last election don't want these systems. Add in good old American Politics it can (not all the time) fuck up a good idea.

also 55 million Americans or so are fing retarded to a point...