IMHO this would be it...
I'm from the UK, but talk to a lot of US friends who are both for and against the current system. Their main arguement for an NHS isn't based on "giving money for other's treatment" but more like "it covers you for all eventualities at a fraction of the cost of private care". More like a value for money system.
For example, here are a few scenarios.
1. Young low income couple have child. Child develops Leukemia (bad spelling probably). Child receives medication then dies. Hospital/state/whoever then calls in medical debt and couple are bankrupt. Their estate may be liquidated on their death or they may be forever paying off a large debt --> life pretty screwed up financially (excepting that this isn't the only tragidy!)
2. Person with health insurance gets really bad disease and requires expensive treatment (I don't know, heart transplant say). Tab for this is in excess of that which insurance provides --> bankruptcy again. No real way of covering yourself on insurance for these illnesses, especially on low/medium wage (when I think about it, cancer treatment is expensive and apparently 1 in 3 of us will get it so this is potentially a big problem).
3. Person in work health plan at company has child that gets sick. Because of this everyone's health premiums increase markedly for the next couple of years to cover the cost of child's treatment. People pay a lot of money for other people's healthcare and resentment is bred (I hope that kid dies soon, etc.)
I don't know how right I am about the way things work exactly, the above is how I've understood what is explained to me - apologies if I'm wrong and please correct. However, it does seem that you can't get a policy that will cover you for some seriously expensive, but not uncommon treatments, without being a bluechip CEO. Bankruptcy seems to be a big hazard for the low income/medium income family.
Thoughts please?
Andy
I'm from the UK, but talk to a lot of US friends who are both for and against the current system. Their main arguement for an NHS isn't based on "giving money for other's treatment" but more like "it covers you for all eventualities at a fraction of the cost of private care". More like a value for money system.
For example, here are a few scenarios.
1. Young low income couple have child. Child develops Leukemia (bad spelling probably). Child receives medication then dies. Hospital/state/whoever then calls in medical debt and couple are bankrupt. Their estate may be liquidated on their death or they may be forever paying off a large debt --> life pretty screwed up financially (excepting that this isn't the only tragidy!)
2. Person with health insurance gets really bad disease and requires expensive treatment (I don't know, heart transplant say). Tab for this is in excess of that which insurance provides --> bankruptcy again. No real way of covering yourself on insurance for these illnesses, especially on low/medium wage (when I think about it, cancer treatment is expensive and apparently 1 in 3 of us will get it so this is potentially a big problem).
3. Person in work health plan at company has child that gets sick. Because of this everyone's health premiums increase markedly for the next couple of years to cover the cost of child's treatment. People pay a lot of money for other people's healthcare and resentment is bred (I hope that kid dies soon, etc.)
I don't know how right I am about the way things work exactly, the above is how I've understood what is explained to me - apologies if I'm wrong and please correct. However, it does seem that you can't get a policy that will cover you for some seriously expensive, but not uncommon treatments, without being a bluechip CEO. Bankruptcy seems to be a big hazard for the low income/medium income family.
Thoughts please?
Andy
Facebook
Twitter