Stephen Hawking: "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS"

[MrMatt]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
50% higher cancer survival rates in America compared with Great Britain.

That's all the proof you ever need.

FIVE HUNDRED % on prostate cancer.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269What I want to know is, if this passes, what will be the tax hit on me NEXT year? Some of you guys are so tunnel visioned in you just can't see anywhere but straight ahead.

Seeing the same person post those 2 lines makes me chuckle.

So the fact that I'm actually worried about what this will personally cost me is somehow a strange topic? Really? I don't quite believe asking for specifics is tunnel vision btw.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Wtf are you talking about? I never said I didn't think I would live that long I said I didn't know if I would. I could die driving home from work. Some of you guys are so tunnel visioned in you just can't see anywhere but straight ahead.

whoa calm down tiger. That was me trying to be nice to you.

I'm perfectly calm. What is it you were trying to be nice about again? Is it considered taboo to ask about personal level cost in regards to uhc?

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: soulcougher73

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
That's fine. I understand my companys plan may change. However, the onus is on the current plan supporters to tell me what it will cost me and what I will get. You are the group that wants this so lay out the facts (in terms of individual cost).

if costs aren't controlled then over time you will not be able to pay for any plan and will switch to medicare in your old age. Where is the choice in that?

Nice and general just as expected. Unfortunate, but expected. I'm nowhere near the age for medicare, hell I may not even live that long. What I want to know is, if this passes, what will be the tax hit on me NEXT year? Is it really so hard to avoid dancing?

I dont think anyone can answer that just yet. But you do have to remember to take into account what your insurance premiums are now and the fact under a true UHC you would not have to pay them. I would assume any tax increase would be less than what most families pay for medical insurance premiums now. As an example i have a friend who pays $600/month for him, his wife, and 2 kids. I highly doubt taxes would be raised enough for him to see a $600/month increase in them. Granted his plan is pretty shitty, but its all he could be approved for. And it probably doesnt even cover much of anything.

I agree with you that my premiums could very well go away. My premiums are very low (young/healthy/single) so that is why I am concerned. I'm not even asking because I'm worried I'll pay more in taxes after this passes. I'm just wondering to what degree my wallet will be ultimately affected.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I'm perfectly calm. What is it you were trying to be nice about again? Is it considered taboo to ask about personal level cost in regards to uhc?

1. I thought you were a high health risk because of your added health care amount for quitting smoking, along with your assumption that you probably won't be alive for medicare I thought you had some health issues that gave you this idea. I was trying to give you something you could do right now that is both delicious and healthy.

and

2. no. or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s you pick

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I'm perfectly calm. What is it you were trying to be nice about again? Is it considered taboo to ask about personal level cost in regards to uhc?

1. I thought you were a high health risk because of your added health care amount for quitting smoking, along with your assumption that you probably won't be alive for medicare I thought you had some health issues that gave you this idea. I was trying to give you something you could do right now that is both delicious and healthy.

and

2. no. or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s you pick

Read it again. I never wrote that I smoke.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I'm perfectly calm. What is it you were trying to be nice about again? Is it considered taboo to ask about personal level cost in regards to uhc?

1. I thought you were a high health risk because of your added health care amount for quitting smoking, along with your assumption that you probably won't be alive for medicare I thought you had some health issues that gave you this idea. I was trying to give you something you could do right now that is both delicious and healthy.

and

2. no. or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s you pick

Read it again. I never wrote that I smoke.

do you eat?

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I'm perfectly calm. What is it you were trying to be nice about again? Is it considered taboo to ask about personal level cost in regards to uhc?

1. I thought you were a high health risk because of your added health care amount for quitting smoking, along with your assumption that you probably won't be alive for medicare I thought you had some health issues that gave you this idea. I was trying to give you something you could do right now that is both delicious and healthy.

and

2. no. or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s you pick

Read it again. I never wrote that I smoke.

do you eat?

Why is it we are discussing food againwhen I asked for a cost assessment? Ah deflectionary tactics.

 

[StinkyPinky]

If Universal health care is so shit, how come the US has one of the lowest life expectancies in the developed world?

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
50% higher cancer survival rates in America compared with Great Britain.

That's all the proof you ever need.

Unless you are between the ages of 18-40, in which case, U.S. survival rates are significantly lower and haven't improved in over 30 years....

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269What I want to know is, if this passes, what will be the tax hit on me NEXT year? Some of you guys are so tunnel visioned in you just can't see anywhere but straight ahead.

Seeing the same person post those 2 lines makes me chuckle.

So the fact that I'm actually worried about what this will personally cost me is somehow a strange topic? Really? I don't quite believe asking for specifics is tunnel vision btw.

Ok let me be more clear.

In one sentence you are telling people to tell you what your tax hit will be NEXT year. Not down the line, not what it will save you or prevent you from having happen. Just your tax hit next year.

The next time you post you accuse people of tunnet vision.

Ask all you want. I suggest taking off your blinders though and taking a look at all the implications instead of only your tax hit next year.

As in take your own advice.

Hence the chuckling.

 

[ZeGermans]

heh another ivory tower elitist that thinks he's smarter than us

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I'm perfectly calm. What is it you were trying to be nice about again? Is it considered taboo to ask about personal level cost in regards to uhc?

1. I thought you were a high health risk because of your added health care amount for quitting smoking, along with your assumption that you probably won't be alive for medicare I thought you had some health issues that gave you this idea. I was trying to give you something you could do right now that is both delicious and healthy.

and

2. no. or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s you pick

Read it again. I never wrote that I smoke.

do you eat?

Why is it we are discussing food againwhen I asked for a cost assessment? Ah deflectionary tactics.

He's not exactly what you would call an "intellectual."

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: OCguy
He's not exactly what you would call an "intellectual."

l see you, obsessive compulsive guy, I see you

 

[Timorous]

Fingolfin269, while I cannot predict what your tax hit will be I can tell you what it is like in the UK.

We spend about 17% of our GDP on the NHS.

For someone earning the average wage of roughly £22,400 (about $37,100) the total amount taxed is about 20%. 17% of the taxed figure is £816/yr (about $1350/yr). The out of pocket costs are as follows, prescriptions are £7.20/item or if you need a long course of treatment the cost is £104 for 12 months of drugs or £28.25 for 3 months of drugs. Dental care is also out of pocket with 3 tiers to cover different work. The maximum charge is £198 but all tiers cover courses of treatment rather than a per visit basis. I had 5 fillings and 3 extractions done across 4 visits and that cost me less than £60 out of pocket. All other services I can think of do not have any out of pocket expenses associated with them.

I do not know how that compares to the cost of private insurance in the USA but I am sure you can work it out.

With regards to those who talk about 'what if SH was just a normal guy' then I can say from my own experience that it does not matter to the NHS. My nephew was born with Cerebral Palsy and has received excellent treatment throughout his life and he is going to undergo a major spine operation soon as the curvature of his back is starting to cause him pain after 18 years of being in a wheelchair. My girlfriends sister was also born with a condition called Prader-Willi syndrome and has also received excellent care since her birth 3 years ago.

I wonder how these two would cope in America after they are out of the scope of their parents health coverage. Could they get cheap private insurance or would they be brushed off due to 'pre-existing conditions'?

I may be repeating myself here but there is a disconnect between for-profit insurance and good healthcare outcomes. A CEO of an insurance company is legally bound to maximise shareholder value. To do this the idea is to maximise income and minimise outgoings. This means that if a company can deny care within the confines of the law then they should unless the PR backlash would cost more than paying for the care. I just do not understand how this can be acceptable let alone defended.

 

[jdjbuffalo]

Timorous, that is some good health costs. It costs me and my company (very big company with over 100,000 employees) about $3000 per year just for myself for good coverage. All your drug expenses are less than I've seen around here (not surprising at all).

Originally posted by: Timorous
I may be repeating myself here but there is a disconnect between for-profit insurance and good healthcare outcomes. A CEO of an insurance company is legally bound to maximise shareholder value. To do this the idea is to maximise income and minimise outgoings. This means that if a company can deny care within the confines of the law then they should unless the PR backlash would cost more than paying for the care. I just do not understand how this can be acceptable let alone defended.

Agreed, it should not be this way for the way for the reason you stated.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Timorous
Fingolfin269, while I cannot predict what your tax hit will be I can tell you what it is like in the UK.

We spend about 17% of our GDP on the NHS.

For someone earning the average wage of roughly £22,400 (about $37,100) the total amount taxed is about 20%. 17% of the taxed figure is £816/yr (about $1350/yr). The out of pocket costs are as follows, prescriptions are £7.20/item or if you need a long course of treatment the cost is £104 for 12 months of drugs or £28.25 for 3 months of drugs. Dental care is also out of pocket with 3 tiers to cover different work. The maximum charge is £198 but all tiers cover courses of treatment rather than a per visit basis. I had 5 fillings and 3 extractions done across 4 visits and that cost me less than £60 out of pocket. All other services I can think of do not have any out of pocket expenses associated with them.

I do not know how that compares to the cost of private insurance in the USA but I am sure you can work it out.

With regards to those who talk about 'what if SH was just a normal guy' then I can say from my own experience that it does not matter to the NHS. My nephew was born with Cerebral Palsy and has received excellent treatment throughout his life and he is going to undergo a major spine operation soon as the curvature of his back is starting to cause him pain after 18 years of being in a wheelchair. My girlfriends sister was also born with a condition called Prader-Willi syndrome and has also received excellent care since her birth 3 years ago.

I wonder how these two would cope in America after they are out of the scope of their parents health coverage. Could they get cheap private insurance or would they be brushed off due to 'pre-existing conditions'?

I may be repeating myself here but there is a disconnect between for-profit insurance and good healthcare outcomes. A CEO of an insurance company is legally bound to maximise shareholder value. To do this the idea is to maximise income and minimise outgoings. This means that if a company can deny care within the confines of the law then they should unless the PR backlash would cost more than paying for the care. I just do not understand how this can be acceptable let alone defended.

Actually by the most recent estimate I could find the UK spends about 8% of its GDP on health care.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: Timorous
We spend about 17% of our GDP on the NHS.

Actually, in 2007, the UK spent 8.4% of GDP on health care. The figure for the US was 16%

Source: OCED Health Data 2009

I think that Timorous meant that healthcare accounts for about 17% of government spending in the UK. The comparable US figure for that would be 24%.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/index.php

 

[Timorous]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: Timorous
We spend about 17% of our GDP on the NHS.

Actually, in 2007, the UK spent 8.4% of GDP on health care. The figure for the US was 16%

Source: OCED Health Data 2009

I think that Timorous meant that healthcare accounts for about 17% of government spending in the UK. The comparable US figure for that would be 24%.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/index.php

Yes that is correct I got my numbers mixed up.

Even so I think it provides a reasonable estimate of what it costs someone earning average wage. In my case it is even lower because I earn less than the national average.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Athena
If you want to believe that the UK and Canada are killing people, you take anything that proves your point at face value. It doesn't matter how many Brits or Canadians stand up to debunk the myths, someone always "knows someone who heard that..."

You cannot teach someone who has closed his ears and eyes to the truth.

Go Look up Canada's own #'s on how many CT scanners ond MRI machines they have per person in Canada compared to the US. Then compair wait times. Use the governments numbers. The numbers are shocking. I need to keep this link as a favorite sorry!

I used to work for a small canadian company. The big wigs would come to visit us for a few hours in the States before going to and have a procedure done at our local hospital then go home... Why? Wait times... And they could afford to get it done here with out the wait.

ct and mri's are heavily overused in america, its practically used as a placebo.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Everyone always attacks those who are against the current UHC proposal. Obviously if you aren't with the program you are a right wing nutjob. Here is all I want from the supporters. It never gets answered but I will ask again and continue to ask. I figure once a specific answer is given then that means we truly have all the details.

How much will my taxes (fed and/or state) increase if the current bill passes? What is the benefit I gain through this tax increase?

Perhaps if these two simple questions (simple assuming the bill is specific) are answered I can then make an informed decision. Until that time I'm still against the current proposal.

Note: I refer only to the current proposal and not to reform in general.

assuming a full, proper reform (not going to happen) you should be able to do it for about the current cost of medicare, medicaid, the vha, depending on how inclusive you want it to be. This of course would be the total cost of the entire health care system.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
50% higher cancer survival rates in America compared with Great Britain.

That's all the proof you ever need.

Ridiculous falsehood already debunked in other threads.

I don't know which statistics you guys are talking about, but the right has already been caught lying about cancer survival statistics between the US/England once already... to think they did it again is unbelievable:

On July 30, 2007, Rudy Giuliani's 2008 presidential campaign named Gratzer as one of his five key health care policy advisors, along with: Hoover Institution senior fellow Dan Kessler, Hoover Institution senior fellow Scott Atlas, Pacific Research Institute president and CEO Sally Pipes, and The Moran Company founder and president Donald Moran.[25]

On July 31, 2007, one day after naming his health care advisors, Giuliani, the 2008 Republican presidential front-runner, unveiled his health care plan in Rochester, New Hampshire, attacked the plans of Democratic presidential candidates as socialized medicine that was European and socialist,[26] and?citing incorrect numbers?said his chances of surviving prostate cancer had been 82% in the United States, but would have only been 44% in England under socialized medicine[27] (the actual five-year relative survival rates for localized prostate cancer were comparable in the two countries: 100% in the U.S. and 99% in England).[28] Giuliani repeated his false claims in campaign speeches for three months[29][30][31] before making them in a radio advertisement.[32][33]

After the radio ad began running on October 29, 2007,[34] FactCheck.org,[35] The Washington Post,[36] and PolitiFact.com[37] consulted leading prostate cancer experts and cancer statisticians who found Giuliani's cancer "survival rates" to be false and misleading fabricated nonsense numbers obtained from an opinion article by Gratzer in the Summer 2007 issue of the Manhattan Institute's City Journal that had said: "Five-year cancer survival rates bear this out... The survival rate for prostate cancer is 81.2% here, yet 61.7% in France and down to 44.3% in England?a striking variation."[38]

Gratzer responded[39] by defending his "snapshot" method of calculating "survival rates" from cancer mortality and incidence statistics as the method also used by libertarian economist John Goodman, co-founder and president of the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), by Republican free-market economist June O'Neill, and by U.S. Constitutional historian and self-described health policy expert Betsy McCaughey, a former John M. Olin fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Gratzer said his "survival rates" were one minus the "mortality ratios" (not mortality ratios as used in epidemiology) calculated and presented in Goodman's 2004 book Lives at Risk[40] (Gratzer is noted in the book's acknowledgements as one of its four reviewers?from four conservative think tanks co-founded, like Goodman's NCPA, by Antony Fisher)[41] and duplicated in Gratzer's 2006 book The Cure.[42]

Gratzer cited[39] McCaughey's October 2007 NCPA Brief Analysis[43] giving her analysis of a September 2007 O'Neill NBER Working Paper[44] (calculating "survival rates" from cancer mortality and incidence statistics) and McCaughey's analysis of a September 2007 Lancet Oncology article[45] comparing five-year relative survival rate estimates for sixteen types of cancer diagnosed from 2000?2002 in nine European countries,[46] parts of nine other European countries,[47] and parts of the United States.[48] For 14 of 16 types of cancer, a European country had the highest survival rate; for 2 of 16 types of cancer: colorectal cancer[49] and prostate cancer,[50] the U.S. had the highest survival rate.[45] The Lancet Oncology article said: "That we found a 5-year relative survival for prostate cancer as high as 99.3% in the USA suggests that the increase in survival is largely an artefact from the introduction of screening of prostate-specific antigen?although, we cannot establish the effect that this artefact will have on mortality."[45]

The Washington Post[51] and FactCheck.org[52] again consulted leading prostate cancer experts and cancer statisticians who found no merit in Gratzer's response. Peter Albertsen, professor and chief of urology at the University of Connecticut Health Center called calculations such as those by Gratzer, Goodman, O'Neill, and McCaughey "complete nonsense" and a "very dangerous thing to do."[52] Gerard Anderson, professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health said: "You would get an F in epidemiology at Johns Hopkins if you did that calculation."[51]

A month later, The New York Times belatedly declared Giuliani and Gratzer's statistics false,[33][53] and Giuliani and Gratzer's false statistics made the worst of 2007 lists in The Times and The Washington Post.[54]

McCaughey, as quoted above from her 2007 hysterics, hasn't gotten any better. She's the 'death panel' rumor originator, and she called out Factcheck on her Daily Show appearance saying they got it wrong, and she was right. Well, of course, she was wrong. Again.

http://factcheck.org/2009/08/spotcheckorg-we-disagree/

Reading up on her on wiki it seems her career has been made of creating alarmism over healthcare reform using insane interpretations of statistics which are routinely debunked.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Hawking clearly has received great service from the NHS. People in similar conditions here in the US get great treatment as well. What's the point of this thread?

One system drives families to bankruptcy if they are over the poverty line, the other does not.

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
PHOKUS LIVES! I was beginning to worry...

I'm busy buying a house

But don't worry, i'll still devote what little time i have to debunking rightwing bullshit.

And how much time will you devote to debunking Leftwing bullshit?

 

[Exterous]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
ct and mri's are heavily overused in america, its practically used as a placebo.

I don't know about that. All I have is anecdotal evidence but I took my wife to the ER with chest pains. It wasn't a heart attack and her chest X-ray was fine. The doctor said - given that she had been moving furniture around a couple of days before - it was just most likely a chest wall issue that she had aggrivated. He still wanted to do either a CT or MRI to make sure it wasn't a blood clot (at the ripe old age of 26, non smoker with not family history) but he gave it only a 10% chance of it being a blood clot.

Turns out it was a blood clot

It's been my experiance that hospitals will go ahead and give you any test/exam they think would rule out possibilities. I think it stems from a combination of concern over the patient + fear of lawsuit