The Reality of Socialized Medicine

[icanhelp1]

You wouldn't know shit from clay.

She has more cerebral capacity in one brain cell than you have in your whole body. You're irrelevant!

 

[gunthernehmen]

It is right as I said it. The Supreme Court interprets the law as it is now. That law can be repealed, corrected or replaced, but the Court's decision on what the law IS NOW cannot be contradicted.

Well, it can, if you're going to push that point.

SCOTUS can be contradicted. As a for instance, that's why all the loons were upset about K being appointed. They assumed he would immediately overturn RvW even though he couldn't care less about it.

It can also be contradicted by a change in law as Dawn states.

Finally it can be contradicted by exercising the 2nd amendment (civil war), although as with K and RvW, nobody really wants that, no matter what they claim on internet pulpits.

Obviously we're two different nations. It might be that none of these things are possible in SCOTUK or whatever the equivalent is there. I know you don't have a 2a equiv and iirc you can't even have "larger" knives? Still, it's available to you, just a lot harder.

 

[oggbashan]

...

Obviously we're two different nations. It might be that none of these things are possible in SCOTUK or whatever the equivalent is there. I know you don't have a 2a equiv and iirc you can't even have "larger" knives? Still, it's available to you, just a lot harder.

"Larger" knives. Yes, we can have them. We just can't carry them in a public place or have them easily accessible in a car.

That is a significant change since my youth. As a Boy Scout in uniform I was expected to carry a knife. There were Boy Scout regulations about their use and only certain levels could wear a sheath knife. As a Bushman's thong passed Scout in Australia I was expected to wear a sheath knife and carry either a hand axe or machete. That caused some concern when I attended Buckingham Palace as a car park attendant in Australian Scout uniform wearing a 24 inch razor-sharp machete, but as I gave my word as a Scout that I would not draw or use it - it was acceptable. Almost all of the Scouts present were wearing sheath knives. I can't imagine being allowed to travel on London Transport or going to Buckingham Palace wearing a machete now.

But if a knife-wielding terrorist had attacked that car park? He would have been outnumbered by knife-carrying Scouts.

 

[icanhelp1]

Well, it can, if you're going to push that point.

SCOTUS can be contradicted. As a for instance, that's why all the loons were upset about K being appointed. They assumed he would immediately overturn RvW even though he couldn't care less about it.

It can also be contradicted by a change in law as Dawn states.

Finally it can be contradicted by exercising the 2nd amendment (civil war), although as with K and RvW, nobody really wants that, no matter what they claim on internet pulpits.

Obviously we're two different nations. It might be that none of these things are possible in SCOTUK or whatever the equivalent is there. I know you don't have a 2a equiv and iirc you can't even have "larger" knives? Still, it's available to you, just a lot harder.

Laws don't just change. A suit has to filed and a litigant with standing has to go before the court and argue the case and then a decision is rendered after weighing the constitutionality of the suit. Again a vote and a majority wins. So important to keep politics out of SCOTUS. Activist judges are poison to our judicial system, left or right.

 

[oggbashan]

Laws don't just change. A suit has to filed and a litigant with standing has to go before the court and argue the case and then a decision is rendered after weighing the constitutionality of the suit. Again a vote and a majority wins. So important to keep politics out of SCOTUS. Activist judges are poison to our judicial system, left or right.

In the UK, appointments to our Supreme Court are not controversial or usually noticed. Most UK citizens do not know or care about the Supreme Court and certainly don't know who is on it.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Laws don't just change. A suit has to filed and a litigant with standing has to go before the court and argue the case and then a decision is rendered after weighing the constitutionality of the suit. Again a vote and a majority wins. So important to keep politics out of SCOTUS. Activist judges are poison to our judicial system, left or right.

That's the process of "changing" law by setting precedent either through normal process or by abusing the system with PACs and activist judges.

Fortunately, we have no activist judges on SCOTUS. Some I do or don't approve of their rulings, but they're generally ruling fairly.

The other way is to get the legislature to change the law. If the change is a Constitutional amendment then it also has to be ratified by the states.

 

[gunthernehmen]

"Larger" knives. Yes, we can have them. We just can't carry them in a public place or have them easily accessible in a car.

That is a significant change since my youth. As a Boy Scout in uniform I was expected to carry a knife. There were Boy Scout regulations about their use and only certain levels could wear a sheath knife. As a Bushman's thong passed Scout in Australia I was expected to wear a sheath knife and carry either a hand axe or machete. That caused some concern when I attended Buckingham Palace as a car park attendant in Australian Scout uniform wearing a 24 inch razor-sharp machete, but as I gave my word as a Scout that I would not draw or use it - it was acceptable. Almost all of the Scouts present were wearing sheath knives. I can't imagine being allowed to travel on London Transport or going to Buckingham Palace wearing a machete now.

But if a knife-wielding terrorist had attacked that car park? He would have been outnumbered by knife-carrying Scouts.

I remember going to school with my .22 rifle (like many other of the boys) because I was expected to bring something home with me. A rabbit, squirrel or whatever. I think if my grandson did the same today the reaction would be a little different.

 

[oggbashan]

I remember going to school with my .22 rifle (like many other of the boys) because I was expected to bring something home with me. A rabbit, squirrel or whatever. I think if my grandson did the same today the reaction would be a little different.

The school Cadet Force at my Australian school often encouraged the cadets to take their .303 Lee Enfield rifles home, by public transport, to clean and practise field stripping. They kept the Bren guns, Owen submachine guns, heavy machine guns, mortars and artillery in the Armoury.

That wouldn't be possible now.

 

[icanhelp1]

That's the process of "changing" law by setting precedent either through normal process or by abusing the system with PACs and activist judges.

Fortunately, we have no activist judges on SCOTUS. Some I do or don't approve of their rulings, but they're generally ruling fairly.

The other way is to get the legislature to change the law. If the change is a Constitutional amendment then it also has to be ratified by the states.

I agree, but legislative change in this environment is pie in the sky. The right could say kids like ice cream and the left would no sir they hate the stuff.

 

[icanhelp1]

I remember going to school with my .22 rifle (like many other of the boys) because I was expected to bring something home with me. A rabbit, squirrel or whatever. I think if my grandson did the same today the reaction would be a little different.

Ah! those were the good old days!

 

[DawnODay]

Thousands of elderly people in Britain are left to go blind because of rationing of eye surgery in the National Health Service (NHS), a report revealed on Saturday (April 6). The Times newspaper said a survey by the Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCO) found tens of thousands of elderly people are left struggling to see because of an NHS cost-cutting drive that relies on them dying before they can qualify for cataract surgery. The survey has found that the NHS has ignored instructions to end cataract treatment rationing in defiance of official guidance two years ago....​

A "cost-cutting drive" that "relies on [aging patients] dying before they can qualify" for needed operations. Such decisions are the inevitable consequence of government control and micromanagement. The system is "free" (setting aside the eye-popping tax rates Americans would experience if the US adopted such a regime) and "fair," but you'd better pray that the government's rules cover your condition or malady. And then there's the nettlesome matter of actually getting the care you need in a remotely timely manner. Universal coverage isn't terribly appealing if the coverage doesn't result in prompt, state-of-the-art, effective care:

Nearly a quarter of a million British patients have been waiting more than six months to receive planned medical treatment from the National Health Service, according to a recent report from the Royal College of Surgeons. More than 36,000 have been in treatment queues for nine months or more. Long waits for care are endemic to government-run, single-payer systems like the NHS....

British cancer patients fare worse than those in the United States. Only 81% of breast cancer patients in the United Kingdom live at least five years after diagnosis, compared to 89% in the United States. Just 83% of patients in the United Kingdom live five years after a prostate cancer diagnosis, versus 97% here in America....​

G. Benson, Socialized Healthcare Cruelty: UK Government Rations Eye Surgeries, Leaving 'Thousands' to Go Blind, Townhall (Apr. 09, 2019) (emphasis in original).

 

[DawnODay]

There are more reports of the U.K.’s National Health System’s collapse, this time featuring horror stories of rationing care for the elderly. Doctors are now sounding alarms bells that seniors with cataracts are going blind as they wait for surgical approval.

The Guardian reported, “Patients who are losing their sight are being forced to wait for months before having eye cataracts removed because of NHS cost-cutting. … The NHS has imposed restrictions on patients’ access to cataract surgery in more than half of England. … The Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) condemned the rationing as shocking. It warned that not treating people with cloudy vision risks them falling and breaking bones, thus costing the NHS more.”...

This is what happens when “the government” is paying for health care — people become the budget. Inevitably, the individual becomes nothing more than a budget item to be deemed worthy … or not.

In England, rationing is established by NHS clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), which determine which procedures have “value.” As an example, “Of the 195 NHS clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England, 104 now include cataract removal on their list of ‘procedures of limited clinical value,’ according to research by the Medical Technology Group.”...

Many CCGs have determined hernia repair is no longer something patients can automatically have, while dozens have declared knee and hip replacements as also not necessarily possible, the Guardian said....

Nationalized health care is a scourge only for the poor, middle class and disenfranchised. The rich always have options. An important reminder comes courtesy of Rolling Stones’ frontman Mick Jagger. He went for a checkup prior to his upcoming tour, and doctors found a heart valve problem requiring immediate surgery. Did the famous British singer have his surgery in England? No, he traveled to New York for the lifesaving medical care.

CNS News reported on comments made by Chris Jagger, the singer’s brother, “Speaking with Sunday People magazine, Chris Jagger, 71, said, ‘Mick is doing OK. I spoke to him — he’s good. It just showed up on a scan so it could happen to anybody, you know. … With Mick it came on a checkup. I’ve had a few health issues. At least he has not got to wait in line for the NHS.’ “

Indeed. Too bad the construction workers, and all the not-rich-and-famous of England, still do.​

T. Bruce, The fraying edges of universal health care, Washington Times (Apr. 10, 2019).

 

[icanhelp1]

There are more reports of the U.K.’s National Health System’s collapse, this time featuring horror stories of rationing care for the elderly. Doctors are now sounding alarms bells that seniors with cataracts are going blind as they wait for surgical approval.

The Guardian reported, “Patients who are losing their sight are being forced to wait for months before having eye cataracts removed because of NHS cost-cutting. … The NHS has imposed restrictions on patients’ access to cataract surgery in more than half of England. … The Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) condemned the rationing as shocking. It warned that not treating people with cloudy vision risks them falling and breaking bones, thus costing the NHS more.”...

This is what happens when “the government” is paying for health care — people become the budget. Inevitably, the individual becomes nothing more than a budget item to be deemed worthy … or not.

In England, rationing is established by NHS clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), which determine which procedures have “value.” As an example, “Of the 195 NHS clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England, 104 now include cataract removal on their list of ‘procedures of limited clinical value,’ according to research by the Medical Technology Group.”...

Many CCGs have determined hernia repair is no longer something patients can automatically have, while dozens have declared knee and hip replacements as also not necessarily possible, the Guardian said....

Nationalized health care is a scourge only for the poor, middle class and disenfranchised. The rich always have options. An important reminder comes courtesy of Rolling Stones’ frontman Mick Jagger. He went for a checkup prior to his upcoming tour, and doctors found a heart valve problem requiring immediate surgery. Did the famous British singer have his surgery in England? No, he traveled to New York for the lifesaving medical care.

CNS News reported on comments made by Chris Jagger, the singer’s brother, “Speaking with Sunday People magazine, Chris Jagger, 71, said, ‘Mick is doing OK. I spoke to him — he’s good. It just showed up on a scan so it could happen to anybody, you know. … With Mick it came on a checkup. I’ve had a few health issues. At least he has not got to wait in line for the NHS.’ “

Indeed. Too bad the construction workers, and all the not-rich-and-famous of England, still do.​

T. Bruce, The fraying edges of universal health care, Washington Times (Apr. 10, 2019).

I soooo agree with you. I read several articles this weekend that supported your claims. All you have to do is look at the VA and how inefficient and ineffective that government institution is managed. Bigger is not better. Some companies acquire other companies for there synergies and how they compliment the mission statement of the company itself, that cannot be said for the VA and will not happen to medicare for all.

 

[DawnODay]

Analysts estimate that a single-payer plan would cost California between $330 and $400 billion per year. If this sounds like a lot, it is. In covering a population of roughly 40 million, this would amount to about $10,000 per person per year. To give you a relative idea of the cost, this would approximately double the entire state budget.

The cost estimate is also understated, because such a plan would draw in new residents from other countries and other states who may have very expensive conditions. This could easily increase costs by 5 percent or more, for an additional $20 billion.

Any sensible reform of US healthcare must confront the problem that the consumers of healthcare do not have sufficient incentives to control costs. A California single-payer plan doubles down on this issue because it would eliminate virtually all incentives for consumers to control costs. No co-pays and no deductibles mean increased demand for virtually all healthcare, and extraordinary rationing of healthcare.

Ironically, one of the main sales pitches for single-payer healthcare—“You can’t be denied”—is false. Current and future procedures that are deemed by those running the state’s health board to be “too expensive” will indeed be denied or severely rationed. And you may need to wait in line a long time before receiving healthcare. The healthcare market does not magically avoid the economic realities of all other markets. If society provides a good at zero cost to the consumer, then the good will be allocated by rationing rather than price. No ifs, ands, or buts.

If you think that the only restricted procedures will be extremely expensive, experimental procedures, then you need to think again. Britain has one of the oldest continuously operating nationalized healthcare systems, the National Health Service (NHS), and is now restricting one of the most common eye surgeries, cataract operations, because the NHS believes them to be of “limited clinical value.” Really?

...

According to January NHS England data, almost 25% of cancer patients didn't start treatment on time despite an urgent referral by their primary-care doctor. If you are wondering what “on time” means, then think of how airlines pad travel times. For the NHS, “on time” already means 62 days after referral.

Sadly, waiting times do matter. Only 81% of UK breast cancer patients survive at least five years after diagnosis, compared to 89% in the United States, and just 83% of patients in the United Kingdom live five years after a prostate cancer diagnosis, compared to 97% in the United States.​

L. Ohanian, The Extremely Bad Economics Of Single-Payer Healthcare For California, Hoover Inst. (Apr. 16, 2019).

 

[DawnODay]

Senior research strategist Charles Blahous rained on the parade of Democrats who believe there is a viable path to fund ‘Medicare for All’ in the United States.

Blahous — who works for the Mercatus Center at George Mason University — broke down the numbers for funding a single-payer health care system at a House Rules Committee meeting Tuesday afternoon....

“Medicare for All would add somewhere between $32.6 trillion and $38.8 trillion in new federal budget costs over the first 10 years. The $32.6 trillion estimate is a lower-bound estimate. It essentially assumes every cost-containment provision in the bill saves as much as possible. If instead things play out more consistently with historical trends, the new federal costs would be closer to $38.8 trillion.”​

Blahous noted that these numbers are so astronomical that it is difficult for people to understand. To make it simple, he explained that all income taxes — for both individuals and corporations — couldn’t foot the bill for single-payer health care:

“Obviously, such enormous numbers are very difficult to grasp. We’re talking about 11 to 13 percent of our GDP in 2022, rising to 13 to 15 percent of GDP in 2031 being added to the federal ledger, and we simply do not have historical experience with permanent government expansions of this size. So to provide a sense of the magnitude, the study notes that doubling all currently projected federal individual and corporate income taxes would be insufficient to finance even the lower bound estimate of $32.6 trillion.”​

Blahouse explained that this cost doesn’t include current government “health obligations,” only the net cost of new services. In total, the government would spend between $54.6 trillion and $60.7 trillion on the program.

A previous report from IJR found Medicare for All similarly unaffordable, with not even a 100 percent tax bracket on millionaires being enough to fund the program.​

M. Dibble, Economist Bursts Democrats’ ‘Medicare for All’ Bubble, Claims Doubling All Income Taxes Still Wouldn’t Fund It, IJR (Apr. 30, 2019) (emphasis add), citing M. Dibble, Not Even a 100 Percent Tax Bracket for Millionaires Could Fund All of Kamala Harris’ Presidential Promises, IJR (Jan. 30, 2019).

 

[DawnODay]

In May, 4.3 million people in the United Kingdom were on waiting lists for surgery, a 10-year high. Adjusting for population, that would be like having everyone in the state of Florida on waiting lists. Roughly 3,500 British patients have been on hospital waiting lists for more than a year.

More than one in five British cancer patients waits longer than two months to begin treatment after receiving a referral from a general practitioner. In Scotland, fewer than 80% of patients receive needed diagnostic tests -- endoscopies, MRIs, CT, scans and the like -- within three months.

These delays are deadly. An analysis that covered just half of England's hospitals found that almost 30,000 patients died in the past year while waiting for treatment -- an increase of 57% compared to 2013.

In some cases, the NHS has refused to provide treatment at all. In June, NHS England said that it would discontinue coverage of 17 procedures, including tonsillectomies and knee arthroscopies for osteoarthritis patients.

Even when patients receive treatment, the quality of care is poor. Patients in British hospitals are four times more likely to die than in U.S. hospitals, according to an analysis of outcomes from 2,000 similar surgeries conducted by researchers from University College London and Columbia University in New York. Among the more severely ill patients, the disparity was worse; the sickest Brits were seven times more likely to die....

The problem is one of supply and demand. Single-payer systems offer "free" care, so patients have no incentive to moderate their demand for care. But government cannot procure enough supply to meet that demand without bankrupting taxpayers. Government officials' only option is to ration care.​

S. Pipes, U.K.'s Healthcare Horror Stories Ought To Curb Dems' Enthusiasm For Single-Payer, Forbes (Oct. 1, 2018).

 

[gunthernehmen]

In May, 4.3 million people in the United Kingdom were on waiting lists for surgery, a 10-year high. Adjusting for population, that would be like having everyone in the state of Florida on waiting lists. Roughly 3,500 British patients have been on hospital waiting lists for more than a year.

More than one in five British cancer patients waits longer than two months to begin treatment after receiving a referral from a general practitioner. In Scotland, fewer than 80% of patients receive needed diagnostic tests -- endoscopies, MRIs, CT, scans and the like -- within three months.

These delays are deadly. An analysis that covered just half of England's hospitals found that almost 30,000 patients died in the past year while waiting for treatment -- an increase of 57% compared to 2013.

In some cases, the NHS has refused to provide treatment at all. In June, NHS England said that it would discontinue coverage of 17 procedures, including tonsillectomies and knee arthroscopies for osteoarthritis patients.

Even when patients receive treatment, the quality of care is poor. Patients in British hospitals are four times more likely to die than in U.S. hospitals, according to an analysis of outcomes from 2,000 similar surgeries conducted by researchers from University College London and Columbia University in New York. Among the more severely ill patients, the disparity was worse; the sickest Brits were seven times more likely to die....

The problem is one of supply and demand. Single-payer systems offer "free" care, so patients have no incentive to moderate their demand for care. But government cannot procure enough supply to meet that demand without bankrupting taxpayers. Government officials' only option is to ration care.​

S. Pipes, U.K.'s Healthcare Horror Stories Ought To Curb Dems' Enthusiasm For Single-Payer, Forbes (Oct. 1, 2018).

Those are just the outliers! Don't you understand this is for the COMMON good?

 

[DawnODay]

The family of a Canadian man says the government-run healthcare system failed their son who felt his only option was to die by physician-assisted suicide after his requests for home healthcare were denied....

Wesley Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism, said euthanasia regimes are never about having the option to die, as it is often presented.

“A Canadian man disabled by ALS didn’t want to die now. He wanted to be cared for at home so he could be with his son,” Smith said.

“Nope. The government’s socialized health-care system refused to pay for all the care he needed. But it sure paid to kill him by euthanasia."

Euthanasia and assisted suicide have become increasingly embraced in Canada and has been advertised in hospital waiting rooms....

"MAiD is a medical service in Canada, whereby physicians and nurse practitioners help eligible patients fulfill their wish to end their suffering," one such ad reads.

MAiD is short for the euphemism "medical aid in dying."​

B. Showalter,Canada denies home healthcare to ALS patient, pays for assisted suicide instead, Christian Post (Aug. 26, 2019) (emphasis added), citing B.C. man with ALS chooses medically assisted death after years of struggling to fund 24-hour care, CBC (Aug 13, 2019).

 

[DawnONight]

The report on the government-run NHS system in England, released last month, details increased wait times for services ranging from emergency room visits to cancer care. And the study reports historic waiting lists totaling over 4.5 million people, up 40 percent in five years, for treatment with specialists.

"Cancer waiting times are the worst on record," the report also declares.​

T. Olson, Amid ‘Medicare-for-all’ debate in US, Britain sounds alarm over historic waiting lists, Fox (Nov. 6, 2019) (citing NHS Key Statistics: England, October 2019, HOC Library (Oct. 16, 2019)).

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The family of a Canadian man says the government-run healthcare system failed their son who felt his only option was to die by physician-assisted suicide after his requests for home healthcare were denied....

Wesley Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism, said euthanasia regimes are never about having the option to die, as it is often presented.

“A Canadian man disabled by ALS didn’t want to die now. He wanted to be cared for at home so he could be with his son,” Smith said.

“Nope. The government’s socialized health-care system refused to pay for all the care he needed. But it sure paid to kill him by euthanasia."

Euthanasia and assisted suicide have become increasingly embraced in Canada and has been advertised in hospital waiting rooms....

"MAiD is a medical service in Canada, whereby physicians and nurse practitioners help eligible patients fulfill their wish to end their suffering," one such ad reads.

MAiD is short for the euphemism "medical aid in dying."​

B. Showalter,Canada denies home healthcare to ALS patient, pays for assisted suicide instead, Christian Post (Aug. 26, 2019) (emphasis added), citing B.C. man with ALS chooses medically assisted death after years of struggling to fund 24-hour care, CBC (Aug 13, 2019).

Well, interesting, you pull out a very unique and sad case to justify what exactly?
That Single payer health care is a "failure"? I hope that is not what you are trying to present, I can find tens of thousands of heart wrenching health care failures in the US in a blink of google.

Or is it that you have an issue with medical assisted dying?

Or both?

Maybe people would like some back ground, perhaps an article about Sue Rodriguez: I suspect you have no idea who she is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_Rodriguez

Or perhaps about the actual law

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying.html

https://www.dyingwithdignity.ca/get_the_facts_assisted_dying_law_in_canada

I wonder what your thoughts, or perhaps choice would be if it was you trapped in a dying body, knowing the type of death you are facing.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Well, interesting, you pull out a very unique and sad case to justify what exactly?

Freedom from government oppression.

That Single payer health care is a "failure"?

Not a failure, illiberal and un-American.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Freedom from government oppression.



Not a failure, illiberal and un-American.

Are you trying to imply that free healthcare ( and ours is not really free, but compared to the amount paid in the US, it is) is government oppression?


As to if our healthcare is "un-American", I really don't care, we both live in countries where any idiot can freely express his/her opinion.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Are you trying to imply that free healthcare ( and ours is not really free, but compared to the amount paid in the US, it is) is government oppression?

No I'm suggesting a socialized form of HC is government oppression.

As you said, it's not free....someone is getting fucked, that action of the government fucking someone out of their money, their pursuit of happiness, to pay for someone else's responsibilities?? Is government oppression.

If some doctor wants to voluntarily give their goods and services away to the needy (free HC) there is nothing oppressive about that.

As to if our healthcare is "un-American", I really don't care, we both live in countries where any idiot can freely express his/her opinion.

Lot's of Americans however do.

Me more so than you Canadians.

 

[Elite_Goblin]

I have been in Germany for nearly 3 years and the health care is really good.

Here are the top reasons;

1. It is affordable. It is based on a % of your paycheck. You make more, you pay more, you make less, you pay less.

2. The insurance chosen is not based on where you work. You choose it yourself and can keep it from job to job. (or if laid off, you can still keep it)

3. Our insurance company is nearby. We can walk in and talk to a real person about any concerns we have. It is usually the same person each time, not some random person on the phone. Only been there 2 or 3 times.

4. No co-pays. Insurance covers pretty much everything. (at least basic) As an example, your tooth fillings are free, but that is for the silver ones. If you want white fillings, you pay an up-charge.

5. Nearly all of my kid's prescriptions and therapy are totally free.

6. ***My favorite *** You will never receive a bill from the doctor. That is all handled between the insurance company and you.

7. I have never been asked to fill out those stupid questionaire forms EVERY TIME I go to the doctor. I have done it once, and the data can be accessed if needed by my doctor.

8. There is 1 type of health insurance. It covers dental and vision as well as general health stuff. In the USA, I had to have insurance for health, insurance for dental, insurance for vision. What is next foot insurance? Hand insurance?

9. Everything is 'in-network' here. No surprise charges that they sent your bloodwork to an out-of-network lab, or the doctor's helper was not on the approved physician's list...etc.

~~~~~~~~~

In the USA, it was getting to be a big scam-game with insurance. You pick out the plan that is best for you. This one you pay more upfront costs, this one lets you go to certain doctors, this one limits your out of pocket to 5k per year (but they still stick you for other costs, so that is a sham too). Another one covers emergencies at 100%, but only accidental emergencies. Silliness.

 

[seeshelly]

Thank you for this thread

Here is the inevitable reality of state-run health care and what happen when government bureaucrats and bean-counters make your medical decisions for you:

The heart of the problem is that, according to the UK courts' interpretation of the Children Act of 1989, a life of permanent disability and dependency, whether long or short, is not worth living. The UK High Court "root(ed)" its opinion in the ethical guidance of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which asserts that "it is no longer in the child's best interests to continue (living)" in those cases "where the severity of the child's condition is such that it is difficult or impossible for them to derive benefit from continued life." Because of his disability, Alfie's very life was deemed no longer beneficial to him. And therefore it was declared illegal to keep him alive.

This decision reflects a profound, indeed lethal intolerance of dependence and disability. But it is even worse than that. Just as in the Charlie Gard case, the courts here effectively terminated the rights of Alfie's parents, forbidding them to seek transfer to other facilities that wished to care for Alfie. Both Pope Francis and the Italian government pled for Alfie's life, going as far as to make him an honorary Italian citizen and offering air transport to a pediatric hospital in Rome. But the UK government refused.

What began with a hospital's deadly policy against a child with apparently permanent disabilities ended with a shocking totalitarian intervention by the state, annihilating his parents' rights in order to ensure Alfie's demise.​

O. Carter Snead, The Alfie Evans case is straight out of a dystopia, CNN (Apr. 29, 2018).

I truly want to thank you for taking time to post this thread. It illustrates the horror that touches every aspect of life when people mindlessly turn over their lives and freedoms to socialist rulers. With all the silly fluff that ends up being posted here on Literotica I deeply appreciate people like you that post something this meaningful.