ForumGarden

UHC (Universal Health Care) is not 'free health care'. The insurance industry and the media frame it that way, but that's a misrepresentation of facts.

UHC (medicare for all) is everyone sharing the cost burden by raising taxes a little and saving the costs of premiums, deductibles, copays, and mandated penalties by a lot. I see that as a win/win for everyone.

John Oliver offers a good explanation. The video cantains some raw language.

Me too. something sure has to be done. I'm currently looking at a statement for a surgery I had.

In addition to $2,000 I was charged for anesthesia, I see a charge for $5,000 for "additional minutes" as if, somehow, it was my fault the surgery took longer than 15 minutes. Better yet the surgeon gets exactly the same charges duplicated!

Then there's the Fentanyl, propofol, and diphenhydramine that they gave me for $90 EACH. And then there's the single Tylenol pill that cost $6.00 a tablet. (I get these for 120 tablets for the same price at the store..)

Then there's the recovery room charge of $4,000 and it was charged per minute! It makes me wonder how many times they have told the people in the waiting room, "They are still recovering," when the patient was really just sleeping off the effects of triple sleeping pills!

Then there's the epinephrine for $90.00 (See a pattern here? No matter what it really costs, I get billed for $90.00!) they probably needed that to counteract the triple sleeping meds..or because I stopped breathing! Wait, they probably used that when they needed the bed or wanted to get done and go home now they had racked up enough charges...

Best of all was the "Sodium Chloride Solution" for $90.00. That's SALT WATER!

Total bill for simple elbow day surgery: $16,461.36

Luckily for me, I have medical coverage through the VA, but I'm watching my kids all struggle with costs. My son, daughter, and s-i-l, who are in business together are paying a $1400.00/mo premium combined for health insurance. It's a disgrace since they will hardly use the coverage at their ages (all mid-30s) and healthy. That's the Obama mandate for you.

Talking to an acquaintance yesterday and I noticed him hobbling. He needs knee replacement on one leg, but can't afford the $7,000.00 deductible. Why have health insurance if you can't afford to use it? I told him that was outrageous and said maybe Bernie will be elected and try to change the system. His response was typical exasperation at the prospect of ever seeing a real solution. He said he gives up. I told him not to.

Sadly out NHS is about top be privatised along american lines

gmc;1530637 wrote: Sadly out NHS is about top be privatised along american linesHow was that allowed to happen?

This from The Lancet

Summary: Although health care expenditure per capita is higher in the USA than in any other country, more than 37 million Americans do not have health insurance, and 41 million more have inadequate access to care. Efforts are ongoing to repeal the Affordable Care Act which would exacerbate health-care inequities. By contrast, a universal system, such as that proposed in the Medicare for All Act, has the potential to transform the availability and efficiency of American health-care services. Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68 000 lives and 1·73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... lltext#%20

Ahso!;1530644 wrote: How was that allowed to happen?


A first past the post system that allows the least unpopular party to gain the seat- if one party gets 30% of the vote and three other parties spread the remainder amongst the one with 30% gets the seat as the winner having the biggest share of the vote. It's a system that suits the main two parties asa it makes it incredibly difficult for a third or fourth party top make headway. The tories are idealogically opposed to the welfare stae and the NHS in particular but people believe them when they say they won't sell it off.

It's similay to america where there is always aboput a third of the electorate that will support fascists parties and want strong leaders when there number is concentrated in the right place they gain influence way beyond theoir actual level of support