100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: True cost of U.S. healthcare shocks British public | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
https://youtu.be/Kll-yYQwmuM
 just under a 5 minute video, with the same title
Get on your bike Donald |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why did Mick Jagger choose US Healthcare over Socialists?
Mick Jagger’s Heart Surgery Speaks the Truth About Universal Healthcare |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'America’s Healthcare vs. England’s Healthcare
The combination of quality and wait times for receiving healthcare in America is better than it is in England. A large part of that is because of England’s National Health Service. English citizens like that they don’t have to pay for their healthcare directly, but doctors are overwhelmed by the sheer amount of patients they have to see. In cases where the emergency room is full, ambulances wait in a queue before patients are allowed in. While there are options to purchase private insurance out of pocket for better healthcare or through a private employer, the amount of British citizens who have private insurance is only 10.5%. In America most citizens who work full time hours are covered. In a 2017 study by the United States Census Bureau, over 91% of American citizens had some form of health insurance. 56% percent of Americans had insurance through their employer, 19.3% through Medicaid, 17.2% through Medicare, 16% through direct payment, and 4.8% through the military. Mick Jagger’s celebrity status and wealth helped him afford a different quality of care. This shows that if people are able to afford better, faster healthcare, they will take advantage of that option. The census study from 2017 also shows that if American citizens have the option to avoid being on government healthcare they will. People should be cautious in calling for universal healthcare based on what we have seen in England with hospitals and doctors being overwhelmed. If we move to universal healthcare in the US, we might seem similar problems to what England faces now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know, you'd have to ask him, I'm guessing because he's incredibly rich, so money is not an issue
Does the NHS = Socialism to you Or is it just the Trump thing And anybody who doesn't love Trump is a socialist, and we all know they're communists So dust off that Colt 45 and help Trump make money through medicine Yee ha |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'America’s Healthcare vs. England’s Healthcare The combination of quality and wait times for receiving healthcare in America is better than it is in England. A large part of that is because of England’s National Health Service. English citizens like that they don’t have to pay for their healthcare directly, but doctors are overwhelmed by the sheer amount of patients they have to see. In cases where the emergency room is full, ambulances wait in a queue before patients are allowed in. While there are options to purchase private insurance out of pocket for better healthcare or through a private employer, the amount of British citizens who have private insurance is only 10.5%. In America most citizens who work full time hours are covered. In a 2017 study by the United States Census Bureau, over 91% of American citizens had some form of health insurance. 56% percent of Americans had insurance through their employer, 19.3% through Medicaid, 17.2% through Medicare, 16% through direct payment, and 4.8% through the military. Mick Jagger’s celebrity status and wealth helped him afford a different quality of care. This shows that if people are able to afford better, faster healthcare, they will take advantage of that option. The census study from 2017 also shows that if American citizens have the option to avoid being on government healthcare they will. People should be cautious in calling for universal healthcare based on what we have seen in England with hospitals and doctors being overwhelmed. If we move to universal healthcare in the US, we might seem similar problems to what England faces now. I don't know where you get your data. Ambulances waiting in queue to get to hospital??? Few people having private healthcare is a sign of bad healthcare? It's a sign the regular healthcare is good so there's no need for private care that most cannot even afford. Mick Jagger going for some surgery in the US is quite logical. He's loaded and specific new things are invented in the US as Big Pharma is located there. These things are not affordable for you and me, and also says nothing about the US healthcare system being wonderful. The data you quote from 2017 are based on what Obama achieved, Trump is now tearing that down. At the end of Obama's last term most Americans had decent healthcare, which was quite something. The whole world knows healthcare in the US sucks. US doctors even write books about it (medical thrillers based on true events). TV series & movies show how 'great' the situation is, and no, that's not Hollywood, based on reality. Many not being able to afford healthcare, not being able to go to a dentist, waiting for some 6 hours or more in hospital to get some help and so on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, and those new techniques and medicine that are created in the US are 'funded' by what Big Pharma milks from the ENTIRE world by flogging expensive medicine and forcing the medical world to sell them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Jagger stated it perfectly.
English healthcare lacks QUALITY and SHORTER wait times. Subjects bow. We bow to no one. We stand up, look them square in the eyes and shake their hands. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True cost of U.S. healthcare shocks British public... just under a 5 minute video
Is this supposed to be under the "humor" section? It's just a guy asking seemingly random people how much they think something costs in the U.S., then throwing out numbers. Like Jay Leno's Jaywalking skit. Other than that, in no part of the video are they really discussing the "true cost of U.S. healthcare." At best he's reading line items off a bill. Which is irrelevant. And the people being interviewed on the street don't really know what the services "true" cost is under the NHS. For the most part they're just guessing numbers. Does the NHS = Socialism to you
Yes. Nationalizing things = socialism to me. I do see a difference between nationalizing and national cooperation facilitated by a centralized mechanism. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 12/22/19 08:33 AM
|
|
Interesting FACTS
physicians per 1,000 in US 2.6 physicians per 1,000 in UK 2.8 In 2017, there were over 36.5 million hospital admissions in the United States. (11 percent) In 2016, there were with 16.2 million admissions in the UK during 2015-16 (24 percent of pop) Oddly, I am briefly working in the insurance industry. This is what I can tell you. According to the facts, the US and the UK are roughly equally fared in their capability to see patients, according to the above researchable facts. However, those facts also reveal that a larger portion of people in the UK bother to go to hospital. The facts cannot say why. That is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that everything has pros and cons. For me, the cons of a NHS may be the resulting wait times or 'quality'(however that is decided and defined). The cons of the US system is higher costs for patients which MAY result in fewer people who NEED healthcare bothering to see a physician and therefore receiving NO healthcare. Free market, in my opinion, for many things, sets up privilege for the privileged and struggle for the average joe. That means higher tuition costs that 'justify' higher physicians costs, and higher insurance costs. It all ties in together. That means hospital and doctors bills can be much larger than the average worker can afford, not to mention those are debts that impact credit scores, which also affects prices and eligibility for things like homes, for the average worker. So, we may have better 'quality' and fewer wait times here. But I do not personally feel the trade off is worth it if it means only a few people get the benefit of it and more people become indebted because of it. And when we talk 'coverage', that does not even take into account things like deductibles and out of pocket costs that have to be covered by the patient, before insurance really 'covers' them for many services. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure that the 'true' cost ( presumably the bottom line) of healthcare in both countries is huge. I'm just glad that I live here and that healthcare is free at the point of delivery. I have never encountered any delays of the sort mentioned, although it can get very crowded in Accident and Emergency departments and generally over winter. The NHS has saved my life several times and the treatment I've received has always been exemplary. One time, I was treated by a specialist who was one of the top people in Europe in her field and has been granted many awards for her pioneering research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
The Wrong Alice
on
Sun 12/22/19 08:30 AM
|
|
I put this video and post for 2 reasons
1) I had literally just seen the video myself, and was shocked by the numbers quoted. If I needed an ambulance, it would cost me how much? Omg My dad uses inhalers, they cost how much? Omg If I were to have a child, and that child be born in the hospital, it would cost how much? Omg It's bad enough, if your unfortunate enough, to say, break a leg. But it's quite comforting, knowing that an ambulance will pick you up, you'll get sorted, and you won't get some horrendous bill, that you may not have been able to afford, and may have had to seriously consider, making yourself some splints, and then wrapping your leg in duct tape 2) There's been an awful lot in the press lately, about the NHS being sold Some believe it, some don't Personally, I do believe it But it's being done, bit by bit, over years, so we kind of, don't notice And who's buying it? Largely U.S. companys And its hard to not believe, that Donald is not fixing a deal for himself Mexico is a considered to be a comparitivly poor country next to the U.S. Yet economic meddling, by the U.S. , changed Mexico's diet, and the diabetes rate, shot up And where do they have to buy their medicine from? No prizes for guessing, the U.S. At an exorbitant price, that nets a vast profit I think that sucks, and don't like to see it there, and I don't wish to see it here, or anywhere else frankly Quite a lot of my family, worked, or do work, for the NHS And they didn't or don't get a lot of money And it's not perfect But most of the time, we are very lucky to have it So,I repeat, on your bike Donald...savvy!?! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting FACTS physicians per 1,000 in US 2.6 physicians per 1,000 in UK 2.8 In 2017, there were over 36.5 million hospital admissions in the United States. (11 percent) In 2016, there were with 16.2 million admissions in the UK during 2015-16 (24 percent of pop) Oddly, I am briefly working in the insurance industry. This is what I can tell you. According to the facts, the US and the UK are roughly equally fared in their capability to see patients, according to the above researchable facts. However, those facts also reveal that a larger portion of people in the UK bother to go to hospital. The facts cannot say why. That is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that everything has pros and cons. For me, the cons of a NHS may be the resulting wait times or 'quality'(however that is decided and defined). The cons of the US system is higher costs for patients which MAY result in fewer people who NEED healthcare bothering to see a physician and therefore receiving NO healthcare. Free market, in my opinion, for many things, sets up privilege for the privileged and struggle for the average joe. That means higher tuition costs that 'justify' higher physicians costs, and higher insurance costs. It all ties in together. That means hospital and doctors bills can be much larger than the average worker can afford, not to mention those are debts that impact credit scores, which also affects prices and eligibility for things like homes, for the average worker. So, we may have better 'quality' and fewer wait times here. But I do not personally feel the trade off is worth it if it means only a few people get the benefit of it and more people become indebted because of it. And when we talk 'coverage', that does not even take into account things like deductibles and out of pocket costs that have to be covered by the patient, before insurance really 'covers' them for many services. We also have a NHS in my country (The Netherlands). I do not see how this would cause longer waiting periods though. If nothing else, it doesn't as people can go when they need to, so there can be a nice even flow. Health care is getting more expensive though, this is due to steering away from what we always had -a proper working NHS- to a more Americana system that's more commercially based and less funding from government. This has resulted in fewer nursing staff, shorter hospital stays and so on. Meaning the quality goes down as opposed to the great quality of an NHS. What also drains a good working NHS is too many refugees coming in taking advantage of it. I've worked as a medical assistant in hospital and GPs, so I've seen how they drain and abuse the system, costing us millions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No such thing as government funded. It's all taxpayer funded.
Here. On the U.S., liberal Communist Party wants taxpayers pay for Illegals and polygamist migrants bringing wives and hordes of offspring. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 12/22/19 09:28 AM
|
|
No such thing as government funded. It's all taxpayer funded. Here. On the U.S., liberal Communist Party wants taxpayers pay for Illegals and polygamist migrants bringing wives and hordes of offspring. illegal immigrants are also taxpayers, contrary to public belief. The IRS estimates that undocumented immigrants pay over $9 billion in withheld payroll taxes annually. Undocumented immigrants also help make the Social Security system more solvent, as they pay into the system but are ineligible to collect benefits upon retiring. In 2010, $12 billion more was collected from Social Security payroll taxes of undocumented workers than were paid out in benefits. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/20-Immigration%20and%20Taxation.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Upholding immigration law would cure that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Upholding immigration law would cure that. cure them paying taxes? I thought that would be a good thing(them paying taxes). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
msharmony you're forgetting
republican logic....GOOD democratic logic....BAD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting FACTS physicians per 1,000 in US 2.6 physicians per 1,000 in UK 2.8 In 2017, there were over 36.5 million hospital admissions in the United States. (11 percent) In 2016, there were with 16.2 million admissions in the UK during 2015-16 (24 percent of pop) Oddly, I am briefly working in the insurance industry. This is what I can tell you. According to the facts, the US and the UK are roughly equally fared in their capability to see patients, according to the above researchable facts. However, those facts also reveal that a larger portion of people in the UK bother to go to hospital. The facts cannot say why. That is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that everything has pros and cons. For me, the cons of a NHS may be the resulting wait times or 'quality'(however that is decided and defined). The cons of the US system is higher costs for patients which MAY result in fewer people who NEED healthcare bothering to see a physician and therefore receiving NO healthcare. Free market, in my opinion, for many things, sets up privilege for the privileged and struggle for the average joe. That means higher tuition costs that 'justify' higher physicians costs, and higher insurance costs. It all ties in together. That means hospital and doctors bills can be much larger than the average worker can afford, not to mention those are debts that impact credit scores, which also affects prices and eligibility for things like homes, for the average worker. So, we may have better 'quality' and fewer wait times here. But I do not personally feel the trade off is worth it if it means only a few people get the benefit of it and more people become indebted because of it. And when we talk 'coverage', that does not even take into account things like deductibles and out of pocket costs that have to be covered by the patient, before insurance really 'covers' them for many services. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting FACTS physicians per 1,000 in US 2.6 physicians per 1,000 in UK 2.8 In 2017, there were over 36.5 million hospital admissions in the United States. (11 percent) In 2016, there were with 16.2 million admissions in the UK during 2015-16 (24 percent of pop) Oddly, I am briefly working in the insurance industry. This is what I can tell you. According to the facts, the US and the UK are roughly equally fared in their capability to see patients, according to the above researchable facts. However, those facts also reveal that a larger portion of people in the UK bother to go to hospital. The facts cannot say why. That is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that everything has pros and cons. For me, the cons of a NHS may be the resulting wait times or 'quality'(however that is decided and defined). The cons of the US system is higher costs for patients which MAY result in fewer people who NEED healthcare bothering to see a physician and therefore receiving NO healthcare. Free market, in my opinion, for many things, sets up privilege for the privileged and struggle for the average joe. That means higher tuition costs that 'justify' higher physicians costs, and higher insurance costs. It all ties in together. That means hospital and doctors bills can be much larger than the average worker can afford, not to mention those are debts that impact credit scores, which also affects prices and eligibility for things like homes, for the average worker. So, we may have better 'quality' and fewer wait times here. But I do not personally feel the trade off is worth it if it means only a few people get the benefit of it and more people become indebted because of it. And when we talk 'coverage', that does not even take into account things like deductibles and out of pocket costs that have to be covered by the patient, before insurance really 'covers' them for many services. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Never had health care...
A lot of people I know have gone in with non-life threatening stuff, and got that staff infection that can't be cured, and never came out and died in the hospital. naa, I'll pass. Better for me to either live with being maimed, or bleed out and die, or die of infection for what I'd be doing in the hospital anyway. 
In 1994, I got turned away at the emergency entrance at St. Phillips Medical Centre on Sand Lake RD. In Orlando Fla. after a head-on collision. I went through triage next door, but was turned away from seeing a doctor, as I didn't have cash to see a doctor. EMS that took me there said I probably had green-stick fractures in both ankles. after all, the floorboard was pushed up to the dashboard. They sent me a bill of $7500.00 for a 1 mile ambulance ride that I said I didn't need, and the fake doctor visit. yes, they billed me for the doctor I never saw. even put his name on the bill!!!!! Yes, I confronted a "very scared" doctor later, after I healed. I walked to the place I was sleeping and my tools were kept, close to 20 miles away. It was excruciating... My car was all I had at the time. My ankles took 6 months to heal while walking on them for work. Also was excruciating. see, I obviously didn't need healthcare. What a miserable failure it was to me then... (shakes My damn head) I truly wish it was better, but I believe it's just a way to push big pharmaceuticals and keep you sick from side effects which can be more deadly from the disease... also, I noticed this became political.... Screw Democrats AND Republicans. You're all a mess. Strong Humans should be looking out for the not as strong, and them that have no voice, and protecting them! I see NONE of that here in These states that are......united???? NOT..... Where's THAT party at???? I'll stick with the Native Americans on this. Bad stuff's maybe coming next year about mid to late year. Everybody feels it yet nobody says a thing. This Dem/Rep thing's gonna come to a head. It's not gonna be pretty. too many loose canons. I'll defend this country in a beat, but not fight within at my brother or sister. at that time, health care will be Dems/Reps. for me, still no healthcare.
|
|
|
|
|
