To: Canadians & English Voxers

Comments

Wow, Zombie nurse is kinda hot. Maybe I am just a little too strange.

From a purely personal viewpoint, I would say it does work, but it is pretty shakey in parts. My local GP is fabulous for everything under the sun, but I live in a middle class area and the surgery has been properly invested in; it's light, clean and by and large the adult patients are employed and educated. This is a contrast to other areas. My mother used to work for the Medical Architectural Research Unit and she used to go and interview doctors to get their views on the design of their surgeries. She said that one doctor used to go around his local area with a wheel barrow on a daily basis and pick up all the bricks and masonry lying around just to stop something been thrown through the surgery window at some stage. The point being, that there are huge differences.

Going to A&E or having babies, as I have recently, the hospital has been good - some of my experiences better than others and both down to personnel - the good experiences have been with coming into contact with dedicated, caring nurses/midwives, the bad when I've relied on agency nurses who are just interested in finishing their shift. I'm not sure if this would be any different with a change to the funding stream.

The NHS does work, but it is massively under-funded and a lot of resources are ploughed into unnecessary beauracracy. Like most people in England, I feel inordinately fond and protective of the system, but there have been occasions when I've longed for the fast track of private healthcare. My husband has been a beneficiary of private healthcare on two occasions and it really was an eye-opener - how the other half lives eh?

Any politician in Australia who proposed a change to the U.S. health system would be lynched, and deservedly so. You may be interested in the thoughts of a U.S. expat on Australia's Universal Health Care System here, here and here. You can read about it in more depth here. I moderate a UHC Group here on Vox.
I have read a couple of things good and bad. Putting it all together it basically comes down to this:
UHC= Good because it covers everyone.
UHC=Bad because the gov't can then set rules and stipulations to the system such as if you smoke in some countries - you get no coverage and will have to pay out of pocket for health care.
UHC=Good because the gov't can leverage its power and force drug companies to lower costs
UHC=Bad because the drug companies lose profits that would normally be put back into R&D so, new medicines/technologies are slower to develop.

You can go on and on forever. For every legitimate good point of a UHC there is a bad one. I think the trick that the US has to figure out is how to avoid the pitfalls of the other systems. They cannot tax us any more than we are being taxed and they need to insure us the freedom to choose different plans or expanded coverage at a different cost.

Beyond that, my only worry is that the gov't, especially in hard ecconomic times may single out segments of the population to not give coverage or to give sparse coverage. I think aging baby boomers would be at risk here. The gov't sure could stand to save a lot of money and solve the pension and Social Security problems if they could trigger mechanisms to thin that herd a bit by UHC policies.

Let's say that UHC was already set up during the Bush years, do you think that they would cut funding to the war or spin something like HIV is a preventable disease and we aren't going to cover it?

I know that may sound far fetched but now that files have been released on many of the gov't experiments during the 50s-60s, it is kind of appauling that they performed nuclear tests on targeted nursing home patients.


I'm not word gifted as you are, of even as some of these guys here,
but, in a very, very personal experience, I would go with PottyMouth here.

Because, like Jando says, my GP is wonderful, but then again, I live in a privilege area, and also because I was sent to bed, crutches, wheelchair and chronic pain by the NHS, but they pay ever tablet I take (which are hideously expensive in any other country in the world) and only in the morning I take 16 of them (different ones, for the different conditions I have because of the failing of the procedures they did on me, which, I'm sure, would have had a different outcome in any other country in the world, again)

Not only that but: they pay my rent, my council tax, my carer (whom I choose), my car, my car insurance, they give me money per week, pay for my shoes to be made ...and I could go on forever.

For every one of these points above there is the frustration of the fact that I was a very hard worker, never consider myself as having a disability (I was born with a double hip dislocation, didn't walk until I was 5, but then I had a totally normal life, they offered me a hip replacement because the weight of my pregnancy eroded my femur heads) and now I had to restart in a new direction, because now I am disabled....and trust me, there is no frustration than not being able to go to work, for someone like me...

But I would have starved anywhere else.

I still would say that it has pros and cons, having worked as a health advocate for the UK's NHS, and interpreting in 5 languages, I saw many success stories, as many as the bad ones....
but I'm sure you too have that kind of stories?

But I would campaign with all my might if they wanted to change the NHS system here....

and yes, the pyscho nurse is hot, btw...
;)

The psycho nurse is definitely hot.
To be a bit of a pedant, can I firstly point out that I'm British rather than English. England's only a part of Britain, as I'm sure you know. Personally, I'm from Wales.

Then to answer your question, I would say that I am very grateful for the NHS safety net. It's got a lot of problems - delays, underfunding, etc - but there's no underclass of people who can't afford to healthcare here. Okay, so people may die waiting for operations... and it is the very idea that I could ever have to wait to be screened or treated for something serious like cancer (which would worsen while I wait) that means I'd never go without my private health insurance backup.

In the UK, we've had a bit of debate about, or at least questions surrounding, the idea that undocumented migrants may be denied health care because of the ID card system that the government's introducing. I know that a number of doctors have spoken against this and promised not to make it happen - to give health treatment to people who're not officially on the books to receive it. I think this is right, for two reasons: 1) Human rights and humanity, and 2) the benefit that the rest of society has in not having a health-underclass. TB is already becoming more common again in the UK - imagine the scenario, for example, that some people couldn't get treatment for this or for something else spreadable and dangerous because the system wouldn't treat them.

In short, no matter how badly it may perform in some areas, the NHS is not something that I would go without.
Thank you for this feedback. One vote for universal health care from someone who has experience with it.
Thank you for the info. Another positive vote for universal health care from someone who has experience with it.
And yet another endorsement of the universal health care system from someone with lots of experience with it. Thank you for your feedback.
Your endorsement makes it four in a row. It is nice to hear so much support for something that has often been demonized by so many in the United States. I appreciate your feedback.
I was looking for opinions from people that have experience using a universal health care system... while Alabama may seem like another country, you do not qualify to contribute to the spirit of this article. (see title)

But thank you for providing the best laugh of the day. I knew you'd show up here.
[this is good]
12 years ago, one of my husband's Danish cousins told us that he couldn't believe that everyone didn't have access to health care in the U.S. At the time, I hadn't given it much thought because I was young and healthy, was just starting out my career during good economic times, and life was good. As years progressed, the idea of universal health care appealed to me more and more. I'm not sure when employers started becoming the primary providers of health care coverage because it has been like this for all of my working life, but I don't care for this model at all. I favor a national health care system.

At the same time, I also think that people need to become more personally responsible for their health. By this I mean taking care of yourself rather than relying on medicines to alleviate illness that could be avoided by eating right and exercising. I imagine this is a problem regardless of whether you have private insurance or government insurance, though.
ok, how about this -

--Jim from England hated the health care system because he felt it was inadequate.
--My co-worker Susan is Canadian she liked the health care provided there because everyone had coverage though she did say that the coverage was at times slow and some things aren't covered.
--My Bro-in-law is Canadian and hated the health care system because he didn't feel he should work hard and have lesser insurance so that everyone could be covered.
--Florida State sux.

=)


All of your info is suspect considering you are the source, but I have funny responses to a few of these that I won't share here. I'll save it for the next BBQ -- thinking about having one this weekend with the good weather.

And, yes, FSU has sucked for 8 years... now it is Auburn's turn.
Americans need a good Danish proctologist to help us get our heads out of our asses. =)
You can ask all of them for yourself if you like. You have easy access to 2 of the 3.

BTW, I think I am on for the NC weekend.
[this is good]
Let's see...

I lived in California for 20 years. I always had health insurance because my parents always worked in jobs where that was possible, and when I was old enough to work and was living on my own, I worked at Starbucks and had health care through them.

I moved to the UK three years ago, and am now on the NHS.

In my opinion, universal health care is great because even though I am self employed and am not exactly rolling in money - I have health insurance. I have access to free birth control because, well, it's free here. If I were to move back to the States, health insurance would not be made available to me because, well, I'm self employed. I would have to pay a lot of money for it...money that I don't have.

The NHS isn't perfect. It can take a long time to get doctors appointments, therapy and psychologists are expensive, and their screening ages for things like breast cancer and cervical cancer completely astound me.

However - they're on to something.

In the US it seems to be extremely polarized. You have people with money and the best health care and doctors in the world. And then you have people on the complete opposite end of that. On the NHS, everyone has health care no matter what. If you are here legally, have a National Insurance Number and proof of address - you can have health care for free. (Plus perscriptions costs, etc.)

There are people who can afford to pay for private health care, like Bupa. If I could afford Bupa I would use it just because it is better than the NHS. Essentailly, if you have the money you can upgrade. But you always have a base health care system you can rely on...and that's what's missing in the US.

As a citizen of a country like the US - "the best country in the world" - shouldn't it just be a given that you have health care? It blows my mind.


[das ist gut]
you rock... thanks for weighing in. i knew you'd have a solid point of view on the subject.

the opinions are unanimous and "universal" with all voxers who actually live in countries with a NHS -- but of course they have true experience and know what the hell they are talking about. =) thanks again, luv.
You put that very well. I particularly like the idea of 'upgrading'.
"luv"

What the hell? have you developed Madonna syndrome an decided to go faux-Brit?
stop being bitter about the results of this post.

and i have always been a fan of madonna. with brit, the only thing i pay attention to is her rack.
The results are as I expected.
Universal covers everyone.
Private gets better coverage for those that can afford it. I can afford it.

And you can do the Brit accent and phrases but for the love of god don't wear the cones. =)
Like a mobile phone. Phones and health care are the same. ;)
You're welcome. :)

It's hard for me to listen to people in the US go on and on about how great the health system is. Yes, it is great - if you can afford it, if this, if that. Too many ifs.

I've been on both, and the thing is, is that if I wanted to start-up my own company or if I lost my job in the US (which is very, very probable at the moment) I would be screwed. In the UK, I've both lost my job and started up my own thing and still have health coverage.

To me that just sounds like a big DUH.

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in

Street Vein

About Me

Street Vein
United States
Our country loves “American Idol” and "Dancing with the Stars." I dream at night the Canadians will overthrow us.

Neighborhood

  • DJ
  • Elyse
  • karen
  • Jessmiloo
  • K.

Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.

Archives