British National Health System

I think it's rubbish.

There are simple ways of circumventing the regulations.

E.G You 'see' a doctor relatively quickly...but that is just for triage, you then move into another waiting room ...

A couple of weeks back I got a bit of sawdust in my eye on a Friday, It seemed to come out ok, but the next day the conjunctiva was very inflamed. I have a history of trouble with that eye (orbital celulitis which can be very nasty, tear duct doesn't drain...etc) so I went in to A&E (accident & emergency). I was checked out briefly with an ophthalmoscope after about an hour. About 40mins later I had a full check out with a slit-lamp (nothing in the eye or stuck in the eyelid) and prescribed antibiotic ointment for the eye.
I don't like going in for what may be trivia, but the Doc' said It was the right thing to do with my history, rather than waiting until Monday and seeing the GP (General Practitioner)

At busy times this can be much longer, as of course moronic drunks clog the system and serious injuries take precedence.
Waiting is a pain, but if you are seriously injured it won't bother you too much.

Del

I think its like everything, there's good and bad...

Unfortunately the media always has to have a story to sell so its usually the bad news that gets heard...

Afterall if the headline was "Everything is great in this hospital" no body would read it but if it was "Patient on stretcher waits 3 days in a corridor" - that would grab some attention.

As Del says, I've had some excellent treatment from a few hospitals, Once just over a year ago I was bitten by a nasty ferret (not mine) and a week later my thumb swelled up overnight and I had a fever - so not thinking too much about it I walked into the local out-patient of the hospital, and was greeted with a couple of nurses who seemed to think I had hit my thumb with a hammer...

As soon as I said 'animal bite' and 'feeling feverish' I was rushed off straight into a room, a doctor was with me in 30 seconds 2 minutes later I was bandaged up had an antibiotic injection in the bum, a tetenus injection and a prescription for antibiotics and pain killers and told to report back in a few days...

Now that was GOOD service!!!

Four hours? Shoot, I've had to wait that long at a private hospital emergency room on several occasions...and I had GOOD insurance.

In Canada we also have socialized medicine and people complain about wait times. The worst thing occurs when they decide that you need to be admitted and there are no beds available. Some hospitals will get a regular bed for you in Emergency others make you spend a day or more on the ER stretcher which is terribly uncomfortable.

When you have a critical condition things can happen very quickly like the time I needed 12 blood transfusions or the time I collapsed on the floor, I got an ambulance ride and a six week stay in the hospital that time. Then there was the time I spent 9 days in the hospital with an abscessed tooth that required surgery and IV antibiotics. Of all the times I have spent in a hospital, that was the worst due to a room mate who was very anti social.

Socialized medicine does have its warts but at least everyone gets coverage.

Then of course there is the wonderful system we have here in the US where every doctor, nurse, pharmacist etc. firmly believes that a medical degree automatically entitles them to instant multi millionaire status. A splinter in your finger can end up costing you your life savings and indenture you for life while you pay the crooked bastards off.

My friends who are doctors do not make a huge amount of money - only a small percentage live the high life, just as with lawyers. The hospital does charge a huge amount, but a big slice goes to pay liability insurance, bloated management to do the required mountains of paperwork, and to pay for the treatment of those who cannot or will not pay for their treatment (some legitimately indigent, but also for illegal aliens and those like my brother who simply do not want to work as long as someone will pay his way). And don't forget the money used to lobby the government to get favorable legislation.

I think the primary reason US healthcare is so expensive is the high quality of what you get.

High quality? Seen the stats on medical errors lately? I have good insurance, but won't go to a doc without doing very extensive research first--because they're usually wrong and I end up paying through the nose for tons of unnecessary tests. Profits demand that they find things to charge you for, even if there's nothing wrong.

I have had very good service with my HMO - probably because there are other HMOs competing with them for my business.

With government healthcare there will be no competition to motivate the doctors, and if I don't like it I can appeal to an unelected bureaucrat in an attempt to get treatment.

I grew up as an Army brat and always thought that I had good healthcare until I started getting private care - I never want to go back!

...no competition to motivate the doctors...

I don't think competition motivates the doctors?..It may motivate the beurocrats and accountants.
Isn't it trying to cure patients that motivates doc's or am I being naive?

And BTW in the UK systems Hospitals 'Health Care Trusts' do compete with eachother.

Del

Curing patients is very motivating. I worded my response poorly.

A clinic has many people working (hopefully) together to help people, but also to provide efficient, timely, and pleasant service. My experience with Army care is that the doctors try their best, but the non-medical staff were often insolent and made you feel like they were doing you a favor to even talk to you. Facilities were often dilapidated.

I'm glad that there is competition. If people feel they have a job no matter how poorly they do it Most people will not put themselves into into it. Perhaps that is why a small percentage of people are the real acheivers, the self-motivators.

I can only speak by my experiences in the US and overseas military hospitals, having never been in a British hospital.

British hospitals are very good! and the best bit is that they are free!

You don't have to pay a bill at the end of your treatment!

British hospitals may be good, but they are not free - you pay for them with your taxes. With all of the accountants it's hard to tell what the true cost is.

My HMO pays the hospital directly (I owe nothing), but I still get to see the bill and some of the charges are outrageous - they are used to cover those who do not pay.

I good to have less paperwork after a hospital stay - my HMO does it for me so it is quite painless.

Yeah Dell.

But you know very well that the Health Care Trusts are the product of Tony Blair and now Gordon Brown who, continuing on from Thatcher, are turning on the working class that stands behind the Labour Party, at least until now and Blair and Brown's treachery, are the means to privatizing health care in Britain and turning the assets of the NHS over to private interests.

As a matter of fact, if I remember correctly, an American (US) firm, Alverez and Marsel, was involved in plans to close down Chase Farm Hospital.

Seems, though, that the good working folk of that community are about to demonstrate how to keep the hospital open and public by joining with the trade unions and occupying the hospital.

I was treated in the NHS when I lived in Britain many years ago. I was referred to hospital for treatment by my G.P. Yes there was waiting time but part of that results from triage that dictates taking care of serious things first.

Last thing you want is the U.S. system where without money you get zilch.

Here in Atlanta, just a couple of months ago, one of the last remaining large public hospitals in the U.S (900 + beds) was turned over to whores from our local Chamber of Commerce. Their intention, in regards to a hospital, Grady, that treats large numbers of poor folks, many the historical victims of slavery and race discrimination, is to run it without funding from government which is why the hospital was in trouble to begin with.

Alverez and Marsel were involved here too.

Unfortunately we don't have here in Atlanta, for the same above historical reasons, very large or strong trade unions, whereas in England you have large and strong unions made weak by leadership that having grown over into the state, won't fight and needs to be replaced.

If they tried this maneuver in New York City, where there are 11 public hospitals and numerous outlying clinics, they would see the entire city shut down.

That's why it is so encouraging to see that local unions and community are going to confront "New Labour" on the issue and occupy Chase Farm to stop it being closed down or privatized in any part.

When I lived in England I always found medical care there first rate. Here in these much vaunted United States, which despite its huge unions never mounted a labour party, doing such is the next step to providing what your government is trying to destroy, free medical care for all.

Or, as is more likely given the ongoing exposure of Labour's leadership, sweeping those bastards into the dustbin of history and mounting a new labour struggle for socialist leadership and Socialism.

The only way to provide adequate medical care for all, including the middle class and relatively wealthy, is through socialized medicine as demonstrated by most of Europe and here on this continent by Canada.

j.

P.S. I am aware of events in England because I read on line the daily newspaper of the Workers Revolutionary Party which for a great many years has been deeply involved in the labour movement and party.

http://www.wrp.org.uk

J.,

It's interesting how many Canadians travel to the US to get prompt medical care rather than wait weeks/months for it. Does it really save money overall if a worker is on disability for months waiting for surgery rather than getting prompt treatment and rapid return to gainful employment? It seams penny wise - pound foolish to me.

As I stated before, medical care is not free, it is paid for with taxes. It's only free for the people who do not pay taxes, many of whom sit around drinking, drugging, and such when they could be pulling there weight for society. I am willing to share the fruits of my labor with those who are legitimately unfortunate, but not so bums who want a free ride through life.

By the way, hospitals and clinics in the USA cannot turn away people for emergencies, even if they cannot pay. They are not denied health care.

Your last statement is not entirely correct. Private hospitals (ie: those not receiving funding from the government) usually turn away individuals that do not have health insurance (even if they are in a position to pay on the spot).

Guest,

I have never heard that - do you have a source for that info?

I have read about many lawsuits in the USA against private and public hospitals dumping patients or refusing care - it may happen but it is not legal and is strongly prosecuted.

There may be state laws that cover private hospitals in that state. The federal law, known as EMTALA, only applies to those hospitals which receive federal funds (I believe this is principally Medicare and Medicaid). Places like the Beverly Hills Institute for Bigger Boobs are free to refuse treatment.

You can find information by going to

www.emtala.com

You will perhaps (if you can read the legalese without going numb) see that this emergency room treatment requires that the hospital (doctors are not covered) assess and stabilize anyone who presents with a potential emergency. If the patient is determined to not have an emergency condition, he may be shown the door. Once the patient is stabilized, the hospital may then shunt the patient off to the county charity hospital.

For what it's worth, this is not the same as medical care in general. For example, a member of my family has a chronic disease that is typically fatal within 6 to 18 months when untreated. No emergency room will even test for this disease in the US (they will in Canada since they ration health care there), let alone treat it.

Ignorance insures continuing ignorance.

"By the way, hospitals and clinics in the USA cannot turn away people for emergencies, even if they cannot pay. They are not denied health care."

Depends on your definition of "emergency" doesn't it?

I see it done all the time unless the issue is one of immediate, and clear trauma, i.e., broken bones, etc.

You must not read the press which regularly and often reports of individuals ignored and dying. Indeed one of this countries greatest artists, Billy Holliday, was left to tie on a stretcher in a hallway of New York's Bellvue Hoapital when they would not treat her because she had "tracks" on her arms.

You have a problem of perception based on starting your thought process from your individual subjective, self. Such thinking does not apparently encompass the myriad ways in which folks can arrive at a situation where despite their efforts they are unable to pay for care.

One fine, if disgraceful, example is the situation of Black folks in this country (US, Billy Holliday was Black). Your mindset refuses to understand that the fact of slavery, and Jim Crow thereafter, set up conditions where even those who work hard are unable to overcome their color based situation where society in general, yes even many so-called "liberals" see the situation as you do "It's only free for the people who do not pay taxes, many of whom sit around drinking, drugging, and such when they could be pulling there weight for society."

History and the continuing implications of that history, save drastic and radical social and economic changes, has no meaning or reality for you because as a mental exercise you can make such thoughtless and mindless remarks.

Your thinking does not encompass the very basis of our social history itself, i.e., that we all started as hunter-gatherers in ancient Africa as much perhaps as a million years ago where we individually owned nothing, or everything collectively, and survived only because we were cooperative animals with a mental capacity for seeing the situation of others as our own, i.e., empathy.

The question that therefore arises is how do a very few come to own virtually all of the means of production of our existence? I know your answer but the issue at base is where did the legal authority arise for collective ownership to be abrogated and private ownership replace it leaving nothing for those of the mass too "lazy" to find a means to rip off their equals?

Truth is you are part of the problem.

j.

My family comes from very poor stock in Oklahoma. During the depression and dust bowl the children left the area with little on their backs and started new lives in new locations, wherever the opportunities were. They did not stay where they were born and demand that government make them a good life, because moving and starting over were "too hard." They saved their money rather than drink and gamble it away and complaining that they didn't get a fair break. Life is not fair, and no amount of big government socialism can make it fair - government can only decide who the winners and losers are.

My relatives were Scotts-Irish who left Great Britain to find new opportunities for a better life. I guess they could have stayed and whined until someone gave them a better life, but that would probably not have been successful. So they sucked it up and did the best they could and made the difficult choices.

My company in Minneapolis is filled with successful black men and women who hung in there and made the decision not to quit - I think that they would be greatly angered by the idea that they simply lucked into success. I believe it is harder to be black in America, but it is also hard to have a Mother from wartime Germany like I did (we all all Nazis by definition, according to the media), but rather than wallow in our misfortune we did the best we could.

BTW the latest census shows that 1/3 of the "poor" in the US owns their own house, while 2/3 own at least one auto. Having grown up overseas I learned that a lot of things are relative.

Surely your comment about winners and losers highlights whats wrong with the American healthcare system.

There should be no winners or losers in healthcare. Everyone should be equal and treated equally!

Even in national healthcare there are winners and losers, unfortunately. I will bet that even if there is a several week waiting period for tests and procedures, that the political leaders and well to do will quickly jump to the front of the line. And their room will be very nice and private, I'll bet. It's just the way of the world.

Rutleddc,

The Scots, the English, and the Irish working class know what you don't seem to know.

That is that they are the source of all value, of all wealth, in that value is created by labor.

As well, confronted by governments like New Labour, as it now calls itself, i.e., old trade union leaders turned into whores and prostitutes and because of their posh conditions grown over into the state, the working class in the Isles, not to mention the rest of Europe, are not sitting around whining while the ruling class seeks to further enslave them, now in Britain trying to privatize the NHS that earlier labor governments were forced by their rank and file to create, but rather are organizing to take control of their hospitals by occupying them and then going on to constitute new governments that may well put an end to the economic system that over just a couple thousand years at best, stole the communal means of production and turned them into wealth for the few and poverty for the rest.

They certainly are not sitting around whining but rather preparing to make a revolution.

http://www.wrp.org.uk

I doubt that your company in Minneapolis is as big as some of the giants that have fallen and continue to fall. I have no doubt that your little operation will fall too. The laws of this economic system as a whole are far more powerful than the economics of your single, little, corporate entity.

Your relatives in Scotland and Ireland were probably starved out and being poor were shipped out by the government or as contracted semi-slaves by some company seeking to make a fortune building railroads in the "new world" since poor does not buy boat tickets but rather ends up "working on the railroad," i.e., wielding hammer and pick in the hot sun and freezing winter, building them.

j.

And after this revolution, whether it be socialist, communist, national socialist, or latest buzzword there will still be a few greedy people getting all of the benefits. Only now they will be part of a powerful repressive government and you will have even less choice.

I resent your tone that because I don't agree with your ideas that I "do not seem to know" the truth. I'm sure that you did not mean it, but it comes off as if you are a special person with special knowledge that the dumb masses does not have. Not every educated person believes that large corporations are evil, maybe just those people in your circle of friends.

BTW BAE Systems is not that small a company.

Its not an american company either!

BEA Systems LTD is a British owned American company, part of the larger BAE Systems which is international. But why would that matter - are you implying that being an American company makes it somehow better or worse?

I'm implying nothing i just said it to get a response!

So thanks for proving me right!

Are you sure about the better?

Rutleddc,

There are three pieces of information I have in hand. They are not secret. They are available to anybody that does the research although they suggest a viewpoint no longer in favor with social anthropologists who these days seem to have abandoned them, as opposed to some of their great predecessors, in favor of some sort of eclectic pragmatism.

Indeed John Locke, the great apologist for the brutality of emerging capitalism, if you read him carefully and discard his fraudulent voluntary entry into civil society (As though working kids, boys and girls as young as five or six, in the coal mines or cotton mills was civil or voluntary), seemed to know some of the historical truth.

First, that for most of humankind's existence, society was cooperative and communal. Indeed if you read Morgan on the Aztecs you discover that the great castle the Spaniards attributed to Montezuma was in fact a communal long-house.

There are still extant today, in the more remote areas of our planet, such societies or at least remnants of them.

The Kalahari Bushman for instance, or in Nigeria, where familial terminology is different from city to village. The cities of course the language reflects the nuclear family as we here in the States certainly know it, and in the village everybody that is not your mother is either your aunt or your uncle reflecting a matrilineal society of the past and the fact that as seems to have been the case generally women circulated freely and were not property, there being no need in a communal society for such notions and hence for knowing who your heirs might be.

It was Morgan (Ancient Society. Or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization. By Lewis H. Morgan) who as a materialist (Much admired by Marx and Engels for his materialism, his science) realized that familial terminology in use currently, but not in fact the practice, probably was a hang-over from early social forms.

Second, that so-called human nature is determined by how we create our existence. Hence the brutality of emerging capitalism papered over by Locke and "civil society" or that which you accept as a norm today "And after this revolution, whether it be socialist, communist, national socialist, or latest buzzword there will still be a few greedy people getting all of the benefits. Only now they will be part of a powerful repressive government and you will have even less choice" could not have existed before there were surpluses to be owned and protected from others, or to be acquired from enslaving others, be it the chattel slavery that was the basis for this countries primitive accumulation, or the wage slavery where the phrase "A fair day's pay for a fair day's work" covers over and conceals the truth of the matter that the employer pays the worker just enough to come back and do it all again tomorrow (As a general rule) but who as a human being is capable of, and does produce (Again as a general rule) far more value in that day's work than he needs to survive until the morrow, and who has no choice but to work under that sort of contract be it one employer or another (Slavery).

This is not about what every educated person believes or does not believe, but rather the material facts on the ground past and present. The vast majority once believed the earth was flat. No doubt a large majority believes in superior beings called god or similar.

There is a difference between belief and understanding developed out of science based on hard material facts.

The hard fact is, to bring this back to where we started, is that workers, certainly in the advanced industrial countries, are capable of and do produce far more value (Surplus value) than they ever get back either in food, clothing, shelter, etc., or in health services.

The working class, in places like Britain where they established a labour party based on their own trade union organizations, some sixty years back, organized a National Health System to ensure that nobody in Britain, resident or visitor, need go without health care.

Now, because of the inherent failures of that economic system, the Labour Party is turning on its own social base, its leaders having grown over into the State and ruling class society, and are destroying that health system.

Do you want to tell us that there will not be a revolution as a result of depriving, not just the working class but the bulk of all of Britain's people, of that stellar, first class, world leading (Not very well known), health system?

http://www.wrp.org.uk

Our own human history shows that it is possible for humans to live like humans, i.e., not like the dog eating dogs you suggest we are. After all we did it for at least tens of thousands of years.

History also shows us how we got this way. It happened, it must have been necessary (All that exists, exists because it is necessary, that which ceases to be necessary ceases to exist. Hegel, paraphrased)

We make our history according to what is necessary, consciously or otherwise. Our continued existence requires we now evolve our society back to its earlier communal forms but now on a higher technical level because if we don't we cease to exist.

Nothing special in that knowledge. Nothing privy to me and a few others. The only difference here is that like all good materialists, good scientists, I base my arguments on hard material facts.

You can, instead of mental notions and inventions not based in reality, do so too.

Is that not what engineers do?

j.

I heard there are many Canadian MD's practicing in the Northern state (like North Dakota) because of the wages being offered by communities that need doctors. This is supposedly creating a shortage of MD's in Canada. Heard this on the radio, so don't if it's true or not.

So while strictly speaking the NHS is paid for by my taxes (I work full time and do paid my fair share) at least I know that if I lose my job and need medical treatment I can just go to the doctor and get it. It is free at the point of care. I will not get stung for hundreds or thousands of pounds for tests or drugs. Prescription drugs here only cost £6.75 per drug and if you come into certain categories you don't have to paid at all.

While this may not be a 100% brilliant system I would much rather this than the American model! At least in our system we have healthcare for all not just for those that can afford it!

Having been unemployed the coverage without a bill is a great thing - it would be one less thing to worry about.

Anyway... Thanks to the UK posters for answering my query. And, hello Jack. Hadn't heard from you in a while.

I think that you are naive, if you think that doctors did not get into their profession because of the financial rewards.

It would appear Guest is ignorant of the National Health System in Great Britain.

For sixty years, since a Labour Government established it, the NHS has functioned on an ethos of service. Doctors there are fairly well paid but don't make the kind of money doctors here in the States, if they are hungry, can make.

For instance, I know a doctor there who is a pediatrician and a consultant. She lives in Counsel housing, i.e., public housing as do most of Britain's working class.

I have stayed at her place. It is adequate, by no means rich.

It is the present sell out Labour Party Leadership, i.e., "New Labour" that has set out to destroy the NHS bringing in private profit interests.

A large part of the opposition to that is composed of doctors, nurses, and their trade unions.

You should consider where your opinions are sourced from, i.e., what led you to them. You are not naive, but you are ignorant.

j.

Hello Jack Jersawitz:

Very good point you made there Jack. I could not agree with you more!!!!!!!

I also wonder why the 'guest' has posted such a question?

I am not fighting for the NHS. But they have alway...........and I mean always been there when they were most needed.

It is most likely the conservatives and then the 'New Labour' who have continued to try and 'farm out' work and testing, etc also including the actual cleaning of wards, the general hospital and the tools used in operations. These people get paid a pittance, and are not given enough money to do the job properly. There is no come-back on these private firms. They are there to make a proffit. But the only people who do make a proffit are the managers.

All of what goes to make a hospital work, cleanliness, included, should be in the hands of the hospitals and now it isn't. There has been a couple of recent cases where operating tools were opened only to be be found not been cleaned at all.

If the hospital or something run and organised by the hospital fails, something can be traced back and the problem can be solved. That is not the case with a major part of the NHS has been privatised......................Lets get one thing clear. I do not think it costs less after privatisation. All I think it was done for is so NO 'Politician' could be held 'responsible'. In a hospital I used in the last few years, there is more Managers, than Doctors. How can that be right?

stay safe

babybear

babybear,

I had no agenda in posting the question except to learn the truth. We have a very hard time getting facts about anything anymore - 99% of the news is about Britney's underwear and the other 1% is fatuous.

Hello TVP45

no problems.....................I guess what used to be called the 'news' is more akin to gossip now right?

babybear

Babybear,

It isn't right and as a Brit you ought to be part of the fight to bring in new leadership in the trade unions and the Labour Party, a leadership that will fight and make the revolution that is becoming, more and more, an obvious necessity.

You might want to look here http://www.wrp.uk to see how the fight for Chase Farm Hospital is building up and to join it.

j.

Hello Jack Jersawitz:

you are right it is a discrace!..............Problem is the NHS is the largest 'company' in the world. The way its gets changed is very slowly. And then just in tiny areas or even parts of hospitals. None of the 'public' thought anything was wrong as the cleaning and other areas of the NHS were privatised............until it was too late!

I really do not understand why it takes more managers than the combined Doctors and Nurses to run a hospital. It just makes no sense. It annoys me that there has been talk of closing a hospital I have used, which means the nearest hospital is 13 miles away. It has been shown that any action taken by the public to stop something like this is a total waste of time. It makes it worse when it is the public who will have to pay for the new hospital, or I should say an extension to the one thats already there.

The upper echelon very rarely even step inside a NHS hospital but, they make the decisions which change our lives for ever.

I am lucky I suppose as I do spend time in Europe, though I am terrible with languages!

I will leave it there as I am getting angry!............

bye for now...........

stay safe

babybear

Hello Jack

you revolutionist!

I know when the cleaners in particular were employed by the NHS and not private, they got more respect. I think at least in some places, some of the 'workers' are there just to make up the numbers. Unfortunately, the people interviewing them, have no experience, do not explain what's expected and there is not enough supervision. This allows the type of person who is going to bum around and hide, instead of working to prevail, simply because no one checks.

Trouble is, these bums make it much harder for the rest who do work hard, but have to work harder to make up for the bums who just find places to hide.

In the old hospitals the 'Sister' was in charge of the cleaning and woe betide if anything was missed! That ethos is not 'built in' now.

People may say cleaning is not 'rocket science' but that is putting the cleaners, who in my opinion are the most important workers in any hospital down big time!

There is a whole lot of difference between cleaning offices and cleaning up to a spec where people are not going to start to get ill. Unfortunately, in some of the hospitals I have been in some of the cleaners were cleaning offices one day and cleaning wards and theatres the next. It takes a certain skill to clean and disinfect, and even if there are only a couple of bummers in a hospital, it makes it so hard for all the others trying to do a good job. There does not seem to be much in the way of job advancement. You either start as a worker or a manager. So any experience which many have in how to clean properly, and who have been cleaning hospitals for years don't really get much of a chance to help teach the new workers the stuff they have learned.

'Companies' cleaning and swapping and changing workers in hospitals is a no no.

If there is going to be companies to clean hospitals, that is what they should specialise in.

I have not taken a look at the link you posted but will. Maybe I am too old and really am not 'with it' and I am talking about several years ago as well.

All energy to the Hillingdon workers though!!!!!

babybear

Hello TVP45,

first hand................I spend a lot of time in the UK, 80% of my time. I am British.

I also have a few things wrong, one of which is Epilepsy and whenever I have had to go to hospital or, be taken there unconscious, I have been seen instantly. I have a heart problem from birth and, have had several severe heart attacks and, again was seen immediately. When I have had a heart attack the treatment starts at where I live by someone visiting withing say, ten minutes, and they start to check me over until an ambulance arrives which, on something serious happens in 20 minutes at the latest.

I know my situation I mentioned is not the same as you posted, but, if you just walk into hospital common sense says you are not as urgent as someone who is brought in by stretcher. So the walking wounded always have to wait but, as some other poster mentioned, a splinter is not likely to be as dangerous as a head injury so, the head injury gets seen first.

Having said that I think I am right in saying you are classed as 'having been seen' as soon as you give your detail to the secretary. You do not have to see a doctor initially. As when in out-patients once you have 'signed in' it could be 5 minutes or two hours before you see a doctor...........................But, if, in the mean time you or someone waiting is ill, then a doctor and nursing staff are there.

I think the story you heard is bunkum, rubbish. No insult intended but, as another poster said bad news always seems to get more publicity than good. And good is almost never mentioned as good, or wonderful. Which I think it is! I know there have been maybe 20 accusations where I could have died or was dying and I got to the hospital in the 'magic' 60 minutes or very much sooner usually, and am still here after the wonderful care I have had.................I also think no matter what hospital, and I have been in several European ones, if your condition is serious you are seen straight away.

stay safe

babybear

Hello TVP45,

this is to apologise for calling you, the original poster of the question a "guest". I screwed up there and am really sorry.

babybear

This is a little off-topic, but not enough for me to check the button. I thought some might get a good laugh out of a recent event here in western PA. We Americans are used to the idea of being denied insurance coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions unless we have continuous coverage (There is even an official document that certifies continuous coverage for just this reason).

However, recently a new-born baby was denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition. The baby was born with, or quickly developed, acid reflux - what we hillbillies used to call a colicy baby - and was denied the standard insurance due to this. Guess the insurance company thinks babies are born nine months old! So, should pregnant moms get health insurance for their fetus? And, can you get a handicap parking sticker for "frequent spit-tp"?

LOLEICTH!

I live in France and when I read what you write about health care in your countries i am taken aback.

It is socialised the HC but it works and apparently better than in the UK since many come from across the channel for interventions here in order to avoid too long waiting times. It is amazing since many french go to eastern countries as Hungary for dental care the cost being there about 1/3 of what it costs in France. Never the less it could be interesting as well for the US to check how it is done in France since as I feel you are not at all satisfied. I do not want to say that the system is perfect many complain about it as you do, especially about people coming from eastern (not easter europe) countries to get care for which they do not pay but it seems to work better and why not try to get the best scheme where ever it comes.

We're against that socialism stuff. We'll just make a poultice out of tree bark and cow manure and suck it up.

Seriously, the very phrase "socialized medicine" scares many Americans enough to make it very difficult to ever have a national health insurance here. The problem, in my opinion, is that we are finding it more and more difficult to offer health insurance and retirement plans at large corporations since that proves an extra price burden on exports and, thus, we don't compete well in a flat world. For example, every General Motors car has somewhere between $2000 and $3000 in health care and pension costs in the price sticker. Not very competitive.

I suspect that we are heading toward a time when only the healthy or wealthy have good insurance and the rest of us go to Mexico once a year for a week of bargain surgeries, check-ups, and prescription buying. They'll probably close the border and we'll have to swim the Rio Grande after dark.

I misused the word is not at all a "socialist" system politically speaking it is on "social"

I don't care at this point if it's capitalist, socialist, or libertarian - I just want to be able to buy health insurance. If it weren't for my wife, I'd be in a heck of a pickle.

Thats kind of the point tho! In the UK I don't have to buy health insurance!

I live in the UK and the only time that I have had health insurance is when I went to the USA to work in a summer camp!

It seems to me that the system in the USA is built for one thing and one thing only PROFIT! You pay your premiums and wo betide you if you get sick! The NHS may not be perfect but it is Nirvana compared to the system in the USA!

No health care is free. Socialized health care is paid for by the most productive people in each country in the form of higher taxes. Higher taxes as we all know restrict an economy ability to grow. The following is a response by a UK citizen to a ruling that the government can limit life saving treatment and life extending drugs. Whats funny is this ruling came from a government entity called "NICE".

Here's the ruling:

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Guidelines (Nice) has ruled for the first time that saving a life cannot be justified at any cost, in a review of its ethical guidelines.

The ruling - made by the board of the controversial organisation - contradicts advice it received from its own 'Citizens Council' which offers advice from a representative sample of the general public.

Nice is facing growing criticism over the number of drugs it is now rejecting which are available throughout Europe and in America. Last week, it refused to sanction four kidney cancer drugs which can double life expectancy.

It has now rejected the so-called "rule of rescue" which stipulates that people facing death should be treated regardless of the costs. The rule is based on the natural impulse to aid individuals in trouble.

Heres the comment: (by a Brit):

"Is NICE right? well up to a point Lord Copper.. but that�s looking at the problem from the wrong end of the telescope. It is time to accept that Governments or their appointees are not best equipped to make these decisions. I pay a fortune each year in tax (or NI contributions if you will) for this shoddy healthcare system that has the gall to say it might not treat me anyway if I'm too ill or have the "wrong" illness. Give me back my money and I'll go sort out my own healthcare thanks. Just as I have to sort out my own mortgage, savings, pension, relationships etc etc. That should be the right of everyone in the UK. The amount of money NICE & NHS & DoH waste setting up these groups to vet drugs and make their Orwellian life and death pronouncements would be much better used to set up accounts for those unable to pay for their own healthcare. The sooner we move to the Singapore model of empowered healthcare & drop this Stalinist-style directed apology of an NHS the better".

It might not be free but it costs less than 10% of my wages every month, i have had the benefits of this system and feel that i should contriubute. We might grumble about it but it is very cost effective and when i go to the hospital or the doctor i do not receive another bill. The only time that I do pay is when i need a prescription which currently costs £6.65. It doesn't matter what drug or how many, this is also set to decrease, and this charge is not paid by any children, OAP's or students in full time education. I believe that prescriptions in the USA cost a lot more than this.

I would rather live by this system (including NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) ,which also seems to be more money orientated). This socialized system works very well in most of Europe and our economies are doing very nicely and were outperforming the USA although I believe that you are now beginning to catch up.

Sure the NHS has its own problems, what organisation doesn't but bottom line is I would rather have the NHS than the USA's model which would be infinately more expensive and no better than we already have.

In Minnesota I only pay a few percent of my salary for health care, and I get excellent healthcare from my HMO. I only have to pay $10 for copays, hospitalization is already covered, drugs are $10 or $20 depending on weather they are generic, almost no paperwork at all. There is no cap on my healthcare coverage, and I get to choose from a large list of doctors. The key is to choose from competing providers to get the care you desire. I love it.

As an Army brat growing up you had to go to a military hospital, wait one or two hours for your appointment under the gaze of an often surly staff, then see the doctor for just a few minutes as he had to treat a lot of people to control costs. Knowing how inefficient the government is in providing any services I do not want to return to a system with little accountability for poor performance (unless the news makes a stink like last year at Walter Reed Army hospital).

I suspect a lot of respondents don't know much about American healthcare except what they hear in the news, and the news is out to spin a good story to gain viewers/readers. I think the same is true in that Americans know little about foreign healthcare. The media filters the info thoroughly for us.

I am in the Pacific Northwest. My HMO is really excellent. The cost for my family is also a small percentage of our salary. $10.00 copays. No limits. My own doctor. $10.00 to $17.00 prescriptions, no cap, all procedures covered. Plus they have HMO dental, which is also great. They work to constantly improve your dental health. My medical HMO, has constantly improved. Now they partner with the best hospitals in our area. You have a heart problem, you go to the best heart program in our area. Children go to a wonderful children's hospital. Non-profit HMO's used to get a bad rap, but now they are one of the best forms of health care in the world.

Our politicians and bureaucrats have bankrupted Medicare, Medicaid and social security. Lets not be stupid and turn over our health care to them.

Note that I'm not arguing in favor of one kind or another (though I do have strong personal prejudices). What I am arguing for is a rational system that competes with what other industrialized nations offer. I couldn't care less about your political beliefs, but I passionately care about being able to offer American goods and services competitively. The world is pretty darn close to flat and we need to move with the flow.

Your point about offering American goods and services competitively is something that has kept me up at night. This might be because I work in a field where the USA still leads the world.

I have my family insured through a Non-Profit HMO, that acts as both health provider and insurance company. I can't imagine a better system (that the free market can provide).

Come to Europe and see a much much better system!

By the way i am just wondering what field does the USA still lead the world in?

Europe is a big area with probably hundreds of health care programs. Did you mean Britain, Ireland, Scotland? Or did you mean Turkey, Spain, Italy? Or did you mean Finland, Sweden, Germany, Poland, Ukraine? How about Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Slovakia, Hungry, Croatia, Bosnia Serbia, Portugal, The Vatican, Malta plus about 33 others?. I made no comparison to Europe, but maybe you could sign in and provide a comparison of all the European health plans.

To answer your question: "Metallurgy"--more specifically steel castings. Countries still send their best students from all the world to study here.

What interests me most about the long discussion that ensued from the first post is that in consideration of international industrial competition the effect on commodity prices (That is,. commodities, after all are what industry provides) of industry or national governments providing health care is seen by some here as a major factor.

Nonetheless, the issue of payment for labor, i.e., for the work of those who produce the commodities, has not been addressed.

I wonder how many of us are aware that a human being is the only animal on the face of the earth capable of producing far more in a day's labor than it requires to survive and come back and do it all again on the morrow?

What happens to the surplus produced (Surplus value, value surplus to the needs of the worker) in that day's work? Obviously it goes into the employers pocket as profit and ostensibly to keep him price competitive with all other of the world's employers and commodity producers.

If we consider an old expression, at least here in the states, perhaps we will begin seeing what is going on in terms of health care or its lack.

The old expression is "A fair day's pay for a fair day's work."

"A fair day's pay" when we consider the system as a whole, appears to be just enough to enable the worker to survive the night and come back and do it again on the morrow.

That is, if we consider the possible productivity of every worker, just a small piece of the value produced in the "fair day's work" because collectively the employer realizes a profit in that a large part of the day's production is produced by unpaid labor with that fact hidden by the formula. The employer rips off that value surplus to the daily needs of its producers.

Hence, the expression conceals a critical truth when considering how to pay for health care for all, i.e., that surplus concealed within the theft could pay for that health care, but does not and when the issue is raised the employer screams bloody murder, communism, socialism, etc., and employs his entire state apparatus to prevent implementation of such notions, or where labor governments have done such, works might and main to turn those governments around as is now the ongoing situation in Britain and other European countries.

Just a rumination on the matter. Perhaps somebody here can comment on the relationship of these facts to the matter of competition.

j.