Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

nsfwcorp.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 127 posts

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#91

Post by marknutter »

ahi wrote: post #35
danso wrote: post #8

Some excerpts: He was a charming, damaged, charismatic, fiercely intelligent, dissolute individual, who lived entirely on his own terms. As a professional gambler, it is unlikely he paid much if any tax in 37 years. He had no will, no funeral plan. He never did fill out the forms necessary to vote in the last election, or the one before that, as I discovered. He just hated forms. I could sympathise. Had he stayed in…

The problem with the TANSTAAFL argument in this case is that the NHS is far cheaper than the American alternative. It is also far superior at providing preventative care than the American alternative.

Of course it's cheaper - the NHS is actively controlling prices. That of course means that doctors get paid less, patients wait longer for certain types of treatments or are denied other types outright, and people do are not granted unlimited resources to fight death at their end of life as they are in our system. You can't just say it's cheaper as a blanket endorsement without analyzing exactly why it's cheaper.

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#92

Post by marknutter »

abstractbill wrote: post #51
marknutter wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it seem like a step in the right direction, specifically?

For me there's a very specific, personal, reason. At the end of 2011 I got randomly unlucky and suffered from pneumonia, a stomach ulcer, and a norovirus all in the space of three months. I was hospitalized for the norovirus. After that I was told by more than one insurance agent that I wouldn't be able to purchase insurance at any price , for about 18 months. Obamacare does at least stop that from happening to peopl…

Well, buying insurance to treat a pre-existing condition would be a little like trying to get a car accident covered by insurance after the fact, wouldn't it?

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#93

Post by flexie »

carsongross wrote: post #90
flexie wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure we paid. Little by little, over our taxes. Our European income taxes are not higher than NYC's combined taxes, though, and European healthcare is vastly cheaper than American healthcare.

How could you possibly know?

http://epianalysis.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/usversuseurope/

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#94

Post by scarecrowbob »

rdouble wrote: post #14
scarecrowbob wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe that this is true, although admittedly I only have anecdotal evidence. I have known several people who otherwise would possibly be alive if they had access to primary care in the earlier stages of their cancers.

It's illegal to turn someone away from the hospital. Access to primary care is another story altogether.

I think that most people are aware of that fact.

If you do not have effective access to care until all they can do is give you a bunch of pain killers, they are effectively "refusing to treat people".

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#95

Post by carsongross »

flexie wrote: post #93
carsongross wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could you possibly know?

http://epianalysis.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/usversuseurope/

No, I mean how could you possibly know if you paid for the service?

I'm not going to defend the US healthcare system, which is a charming mixture of the worst aspects of monopoly markets and socialism.

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#96

Post by elemeno »

Aaronontheweb wrote: post #77
elemeno wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In a system where you can't sue your healthcare provider for egregious malpractice because they're a governmental body and are thus subject to the same citizen-sues-state rules as law enforcement or any other public service, I fear for the quality of our healthcare. That's nonsense, hospitals and NHS Trusts are routinely sued for malpractice, along with the doctors involved. There's nothing special about any part o…

Sorry if my comment doesn't please the autistic bias of HN community and greater internet justice. See my response to your sibling comment below.

It's not about autistic biases for me, at least not when the topic is the NHS. All of my father, uncle, aunt and other-half are doctors all of whom work for, at least in part, the NHS and are respectively an oncologist, dermatologist, GP and ob/gyn. As you might imagine, I spend quite a lot of time listening to them talk about the NHS, their particular trusts and their hospitals and the failings of all the above. All of them would much rather live here where you'll be looked after by the NHS, and can also have private care if you're willing to pay for it (though often the only difference is that you get a nicer room and shorter waits for non-emergency operations), than in the US where the patient is merely the mechanism through which you bill the insurance company.

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#97

Post by redblacktree »

marknutter wrote: post #91
ahi wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the TANSTAAFL argument in this case is that the NHS is far cheaper than the American alternative. It is also far superior at providing preventative care than the American alternative.

Of course it's cheaper - the NHS is actively controlling prices. That of course means that doctors get paid less, patients wait longer for certain types of treatments or are denied other types outright, and people do are not granted unlimited resources to fight death at their end of life as they are in our system. You can't just say it's cheaper as a blanket endorsement without analyzing exactly why it's cheaper.

Is private insurance still available if I want more exotic options? Sounds like the best of both worlds to me.

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#98

Post by potatolicious »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #67
droithomme wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of those people. Allow me to respond. I have seen people ruined with medical bills. There are many reasons why the system is dysfunctional, and I'm aware of nearly all of them. Did you know that a round of cancer treatment in the US can cost over $500,000, and even if you are fully insured with a good policy you can have a 20% copay required, meaning that with insurance you still personally have to pay $100,0…

I non-trolling Brit here. Single-payer seems from scan of Wikipedia to be "government pays the bills" - in other words an NHS like solution. Which seems to me a position the others in the thread are advocating (ie our current system is barbaric, bankrupts people we must fix it) So I am a little confused why your post seems to be defending itself from posts that as an outsider I would see as firmly in your camp?

Single-payer is a bit more nuanced than "government pays the bills".

Single-payer means that health care institutions remain private, government does not run or employ any doctors directly, and everything works much like it does today, except pricing is unified and the government pays all bills.

This is different from nationalized health care, especially on paper, where it can preserve market-style competitive pressure that a wholly nationalized system would not. Doctors and hospitals would still be on the hook for attracting customers.

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#99

Post by potatolicious »

marknutter wrote: post #92
abstractbill wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me there's a very specific, personal, reason. At the end of 2011 I got randomly unlucky and suffered from pneumonia, a stomach ulcer, and a norovirus all in the space of three months. I was hospitalized for the norovirus. After that I was told by more than one insurance agent that I wouldn't be able to purchase insurance at any price , for about 18 months. Obamacare does at least stop that from happening to peopl…

Well, buying insurance to treat a pre-existing condition would be a little like trying to get a car accident covered by insurance after the fact, wouldn't it?

Yes, but health insurance is not insurance at all. It's really a gross misnomer, and outside of a niche market, no one seriously sells health insurance.

Insurance is designed to protect the policy holder from an unlikely, catastrophic event they cannot afford otherwise - coverage of everyday costs is not insurance. Notice your insurance company doesn't pay to rotate your tires or change your oil.

Health care, no matter which country you go to, is more of the latter than the former. They aren't primarily insuring against unlikely catastrophic events - that's only a small part of their purpose - they are very obvious ways to spread costs around.

You can't treat health insurance like real insurance, even if they share a name.

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#100

Post by lotsofcows »

Aaronontheweb wrote: post #74
bengillies wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain this please, as I'm pretty sure you can totally sue the NHS if you want to.

Sure In one instance in the 1970s I had a great uncle who came into a local clinic complaining about crushing chest-pain, and was told to come back the following day because the attending physician was out for the day. He died on the street of a heart attack while walking home. Why he wasn't immediately rushed to a hospital is beyond me. More recently, my grandmother, who died in 2004, was wait listed for over a year…

First one sounds odd. What sort of "clinic"? That's not really a word I associate with medicine.

Second clearly sounds like a fuck up. Current "wait to first treatment" target is 2 weeks. What happened when you tried to sue?

Post reply on HN