Homerboy
Lifer
- Mar 1, 2000
- 30,859
- 4,976
- 126
Well when the entire population of your country is the size of a large US suburb it tends to change things. I love when people make comparisons like this. There are so many factors to take into account beyond just population but it never fails that someone will compare small European countries to the United States as if they are even remotely the same.
There was an interesting article/story today about an American woman who was living in iceland who found a lump ....
was told to go straight to cancer center, got screened, got second test to be sure all within a short time, and since she was a foreigner she had to pay a little bit of a copay, but it more or less amounted to around $3.
https://www.dailydot.com/irl/breast-lump-us-healthcare/
Also, while Iceland's system is MUCH better than the US, I don't think they are considered #1 in the world.
(Isn't USA ranked like #50 or something?)
I heard there was some potential trade deal pending to bring US health insurance companies into the mix in the UK , if anything like this happens, then I expect their costs will skyrocket and quality of service will get even worse ...And Iceland has a population of 340k, 0.1% of the US. They can manage a more efficient health care system.
I have a good friend who lives in England. She's had several health issues and uses the UK public health care system. Invariably, this has bee her experience:
Has a problem
Has to wait a week or more to go to her regular doc
Doc examines her and schedules tests
She waits up to 4-6 weeks for said tests
waits another week or so for results
Doc refers her to a specialist
Waits 4-8 weeks to see specialist
Gets more tests - again a few week wait
Waits a few weeks for results
Finally gets treated
Doctor (in some cases) effed up somehow
No thanks.
I'm by no means saying that what we have is great. It could most definitely be improved. I was involved in a discussion on this board 10 years ago and offered some suggestions. Surprisingly, a few of the left-leaning members back then thought some of my suggestions had some merit.
I wish there could be a legit discussion on this, but it'll never happen. Everyone is agenda driven and the .gov only cares about itself and returning this country to feudalism.
I heard there was some potential trade deal pending to bring US health insurance companies into the mix in the UK , if anything like this happens, then I expect their costs will skyrocket and quality of service will get even worse ...
I have a good friend who lives in England. She's had several health issues and uses the UK public health care system. Invariably, this has bee her experience:
Has a problem
Has to wait a week or more to go to her regular doc
Doc examines her and schedules tests
She waits up to 4-6 weeks for said tests
waits another week or so for results
Doc refers her to a specialist
Waits 4-8 weeks to see specialist
Gets more tests - again a few week wait
Waits a few weeks for results
Finally gets treated
Doctor (in some cases) effed up somehow
Unlike in the US where it goes like this:
Has a problem
Has to wait a week or more to go to her regular doc
Doc examines her and schedules tests
Has to get pre-approval from insurance for test.
Insurance denies approval.
Has to spend up to 4-6 weeks arguing with insurance to get approval.
Has to wait a week to get test.
Waits another week or so for results
Doc refers her to a specialist
Has to get pre-approval from insurance for specialist.
Insurance denies specialist.
Has to spend up to 4-6 weeks arguing with insurance to get approval to see specialist
Sees specialist.
Specialist orders more test.
Has to get pre-approval from insurance for test.
Insurance denies approval.
Has to spend up to 4-6 weeks arguing with insurance to get approval.
Gets more tests - again a few week wait
Waits a few weeks for results
Specialist recommends treatment.
Has to get pre-approval from insurance for treatment.
Insurance denies approval.
Has to spend up to 4-6 weeks arguing with insurance.
Insurance decides it would be cheaper for patient to die and get sued.
Dies waiting for approval that will never come.
Family gets bill for half a million dollars for what insurance didn't cover.
Family tries to sue insurance only to find out that have a binding clause of arbitration with insurance.
Arbiter works for insurance company and denies claim.
And Iceland has a population of 340k, 0.1% of the US. They can manage a more efficient health care system.
So does anyone know how much M4A saves?
I don't, but I am aware of the problems around M4FA, all of which are indicative of any attempt to amend our present system -- that there are winners and losers in every proposal, and that all the special interests -- hospitals, doctors, insurance companies, low info voters for whom the very word "socialism" makes them soil their drawers, and the right wing politicians whose political survival depends in these dumbbells support -- will rise up and oppose those reform attempts.So does anyone know how much M4A saves?
I don't, but I am aware of the problems around M4FA, all of which are indicative of any attempt to amend our present system -- that there are winners and losers in every proposal, and that all the special interests -- hospitals, doctors, insurance companies, low info voters for whom the very word "socialism" makes them soil their drawers, and the right wing politicians whose political survival depends in these dumbbells support -- will rise up and oppose those reform attempts.
For instance, hospitals and doctors will spend copious amounts of money opposing M4FA because payments/reimbursements through M4FA are lower than they presently get.
Our present system if fucked, but it is entrenched. It's tentacles have a grip on all sorts of powerful stakeholders, which means, shorthand, that attempts our attempts to change are fucked. We're fucked.
So, ummmm, do you wish to speak on your question of "how much M4FA saves," or on any of the myriad ancillary issues that surround it?
That appears to be an answer to a question I didn't ask.
No, I don't. It is hysterical of you to glean from the factually true statement of mine that I want to put hospitals and doctors our of business.You want to put providers out of business.
For instance, hospitals and doctors will spend copious amounts of money opposing M4FA because payments/reimbursements through M4FA are lower than they presently get.
No, I don't. It is hysterical of you to glean from the factually true statement of mine that I want to put hospitals and doctors our of business.
For those following at home, here is the statement you quoted and reacted to:
^^^ That's a FACT. And it is one of the many impediments those who wish to reform our system face.
I responded to your generalization appropriately I believe as you have put M4A as the solution when so much needs to be done in advance before any plan can be seen as such.
Unlike in the US where it goes like this:
Has a problem
Has to wait a week or more to go to her regular doc
Doc examines her and schedules tests
Has to get pre-approval from insurance for test.
Insurance denies approval.
Has to spend up to 4-6 weeks arguing with insurance to get approval.
Has to wait a week to get test.
Waits another week or so for results
Doc refers her to a specialist
Has to get pre-approval from insurance for specialist.
Insurance denies specialist.
Has to spend up to 4-6 weeks arguing with insurance to get approval to see specialist
Sees specialist.
Specialist orders more test.
Has to get pre-approval from insurance for test.
Insurance denies approval.
Has to spend up to 4-6 weeks arguing with insurance to get approval.
Gets more tests - again a few week wait
Waits a few weeks for results
Specialist recommends treatment.
Has to get pre-approval from insurance for treatment.
Insurance denies approval.
Has to spend up to 4-6 weeks arguing with insurance.
Insurance decides it would be cheaper for patient to die and get sued.
Dies waiting for approval that will never come.
Family gets bill for half a million dollars for what insurance didn't cover.
Family tries to sue insurance only to find out that have a binding clause of arbitration with insurance.
Arbiter works for insurance company and denies claim.
Name one first world country that doesn't have a more efficient health care system than the US.
