UK's healthcare top of league table out of 11 western countries. US = last

[Jack]

Got me off on an organ reading tangent, Pyraxis. Globally, that's a messed up topic. It seems the general rule with transplants is, people can't afford them, and even people with excellent insurance coverage will end up with at least 100,000 in out of pocket, which doesn't include the maintenance pharmaceuticals, which prevent organ rejection, and cost about 10,000 per year for the life of the implant. Didn't read if insurance companies cover the maintenance medication. Because of the severity of illness and cost entailed, people with advanced organ failure generally do qualify for either Medicaid or Medicare, but read it's recommended people on Medicare should also seek some sort of supplemental insurance coverage because, unless over the age of 65, the government will only pay for the first three years of pharmaceutical maintenance care. Have no clue how people are financing those meds of if they're being denied to anyone. Though like other medications people can't afford, will assume they are. Big big elephant.

[odeon]

Most likely not, considering that we're talking about different countries. 

Out of pocket expense is out of pocket for the patient no matter where they live.

Only, the "government" does not refuse treatment here. It's not how it works at all. There are cases where experimental treatments have been denied, sure, but it would seem that you're equating between insurance companies and governments to compare the different healthcare systems and that just doesn't work.

Missed this post. Then I don't understand why someone in the UK would be saving money for laser eye surgery. That's not experimental.

I very much doubt their national health care would pay for someone's laser surgery unless it corrected an underlying disease rather than simply poor eyesight.

[Jack]

Yes, that was the point being made about circumstances when there's a less expensive method of treatment available.

[odeon]

http://www.creakyjoints.org/blogs/insurance-matters/truth-about-long-term-disability[/url]

That's a rant about a few different things, insurance claims, long-term disability claims (which have nothing to do with insurance in the US), the uninsured, all different issues being blamed on the insurance company. Not saying it's wrong, but maybe not specific enough to be fitting to the discussion so will let it go.

So how about this story?

And this one gives a few hints, but the patient seems to blame Obamacare.

Maybe I'll dig up more later. These are not very conclusive.

Not really trying to say the US health insurance system isn't in any way ever problematic, but thinking outright claim denial isn't really frequent or common because you say it is. Insurance companies are what they are and there's been some improvement with the current administration, but US the government simply isn't equipped to take over that industry, and that's not what they should be claiming or attempting to do. It would take decades to man and organize something like that; maybe it's coming eventually, but the public can't expect it to happen in a snap because some man with a microphone says he can do it. People are mad about Obamacare because he made some really big promises that weren't delivered. Personally can't wait until his term is over; tired of hearing people complain about him. Also not denying the main issues with health care in the US is largely a financial one. The real problem with health insurance in the US was obvious, the lower middle class. Those people didn't meet the income requirements for government programs and genuinely either couldn't afford insurance or worked in low-paying jobs that either offered no insurance, or offered crappy policies that didn't cover much expense above the premiums paid in. The government fixed that issue for children during the Clinton administration, by opening the umbrella of government health care by offering the lower middle class health coverage for children at a very low cost. Requiring everyone to have health insurance in the US will certainly help with the issue of the general cost of health care because the medical industry is more likely to be paid for their services now, but the financial problem of the general public hasn't been addressed. Obama promised the lower middle class an affordable government health plan and he failed. Can't see why it couldn't be done under the same principals of child health.

The US is the only reasonably wealthy nation on the planet without a universal healthcare system. Around 16% of its population does not currently have a healthcare insurance and, according to statistics published in American Journal of Medicine, about two thirds of all bankruptcy filings in the United States in 2007 were due to illness or medical bills.

Yet, the US spends more on healthcare than any industrialised nation on the planet.

Why wouldn't it be possible for the US to have universal healthcare coverage when it's possible for just about everyone else?

[odeon]

Only, the "government" does not refuse treatment here.

This is still bugging me. No one is refused treatment here either. This reminds me of butterflies making the claim that ambulances speed away from sick and injured people in the US who don't have health insurance, because evidentially someone very intelligent and learned told her it's true. Thinking this is possibly a common misconception.

There's a world of difference between being refused *basic* treatment and anything more advanced. The people currently without an insurance have a 40% higher risk of death than the ones with, according to recent statistics in a Harvard study. I'd say that while they aren't thrown out, they probably aren't offered the same level of care as those with an insurance.

[odeon]

Now wondering what pharma corporations are actually charging the government for chemo meds.

Did you know that they are frequently charging more for the same meds in the US than they are in other countries?

[Jack]

It will be next year before statistics for coverage are reflected in relation to the new mandates requiring everyone to have insurance, which were set into place this year, though already made the point of the majority of uninsured not necessarily qualifying as unable to be insured, or not able to afford insurance. Not saying it isn't possible, just not immediately possible because the system isn't in any way equipped to do it. What is immediately possible, is to address the areas which are the greatest financial concern; that's the lower middle class, and pharma cost. The government also needs to fix their own problems first, and address the problems with people who are already have government health care. Personally think the government did the right thing with the insurance mandates, and it will absolutely make a difference in the cost of care. Also would have no problem with the money personally paid in premiums to go toward taxes instead, if the government were to show it's equipped to do the job. Right now, the national budget pays more for war than social security, welfare, or education, and as long as there's elderly on Medicare with uncovered pharmaceutical care, then they're not good enough for me. Maybe when the war is over it will be possible for the US to actually care about healthcare.

[Jack]

Now wondering what pharma corporations are actually charging the government for chemo meds.

Did you know that they are frequently charging more for the same meds in the US than they are in other countries?

Yes, the US and Canada have a sweet little exchange going. People strapped for cash in the US get mail order meds from Canadian distributors, and people in Canada with the big bucks come here to get surgery without having to wait. Hmph.

[Jack]

they're not good enough for me.

btw. Try not to find too much pride in that statement. No one else's government is enough for me either; they're all messed up and none of them prove they can do it right. Would personally rather deal with a financial crisis than have myself or a loved one sit for months in pain, or becoming addicted to whatever relieves that pain, waiting for surgery. The UK has a private sector too, for people who can afford to get what they need when they need it, correct? Everywhere has crap. Sometimes it's just different crap. Thinking about it too much makes me tired.

[El]

Not sure I understand your question. Haven't ever known anyone receiving regular psychotherapy, so this is more curiosity than anything. Are people on disability benefits afforded therapy every week?

Whether or not they are on disability benefits, as odeon said, it's determined by the health professionals how often they need to be seen.  Weekly or every other week is pretty standard for talk therapy.

[El]

We don't get refused *treatment* very often in the US, but we can get refused reimbursement from insurance companies.

That said, health professionals may need to turn away patients who can't pay.  We have to do it at my company, sometimes, which sucks (and is a new thing we are doing to stay afloat).  Also, some doctors will refuse to (or are unable to) work with people with certain kinds of insurance.  In neither case is this an issue of emergency medicine, though.

The ACA is bringing insurance much more into public awareness.  A couple of positives it may actually be realistic to hope for from it are that, over time, the US starts to catch up with other wealthy nations in its attitude towards health insurance as more of a right than a luxury or benefit (which would make us much more motivated to try and fix how fucked the whole thing is).  Another (which sort of follows from the first) is that it may add incentive to push medicaid expansion, which it already has been (the ACA is kinda written to work properly only if there is a medicaid option).

Again, living in a state where the ACA was basically piloted, I'm already somewhat indoctrinated into the idea that health insurance is something that should be accessible.

[Pyraxis]

Have known people with overwhelming medical bills, and they filed medical bankruptcy without having to forfeit any personal assets. From my understanding that's not uncommon practice to get medical bills off people's back, and part of the reason for the high general cost of care. Also lost a family member to cancer a couple of years ago and their medications were obtained by the doctors directly from the pharma company at no cost.

Interesting... I didn't know either of these things were possible.

To get into the disability system, as far as I know, you have to have a doctor certify that you are permanently and totally disabled. I think the key word there is permamently - with cancer treatments you can have cases where the person is unable to work for a year or so, or whatever the length of the treatment, and then they go into remission and become recovered enough to work again.

[El-Presidente]

Depends on who you ask. The WHO league table looks a little different to what Adam is trying to say. Looks like he is getting skilled in politics, spouting blatant bullshit to support a selective agenda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_health_consumer_index

http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

[El-Presidente]

The title of this graph should be, Here's some nonsensical crap someone pulled out of their butt because they really want to say the UK is the best and the US is the worst. Please don't do the math. Exhibit ES-1

I almost can't be bothered. The shit for brains OP is incapable of responding to the completely justified refutation of his nonsense. He does this time and time again. He is either stupid, a troll or I've heard he is now in politics, which explains a lot.

[Adam]