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

[El]

Asked about people who have disability benefits; that's Medicare. Appreciate the conversation.

but... but... no... we've been over this...

 

[Jack]

but...but...yes. Medicare if for the elderly and disabled regardless of income. Medicaid is for the poor, which can also include the elderly and disabled but aren't disability benefits. You know I'm right.

[odeon]

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.

There's private healthcare in the UK, yes. The difference is that there's working national healthcare, too.

[odeon]

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/

Actually it seems to depend more on whom you quote. Attacking Adam personally does your argument no favours.

[Jack]

There's private healthcare in the UK, yes. The difference is that there's working national healthcare, too.

The difference creates a system where the wealthy are prioritized; that's why Canada doesn't allow it. Privatized care undermines the principles of equality for a nationalized system. Understand the waiting times are related to the lack of specialist in practice within the NHS, with specialized care costing more so more serving the private sector, and even specialist serving the NHS supplementing their income with private practice. Also read private coverage doesn't cover general practitioners and is designed for specialized service, and isn't completely sought voluntarily, which didn't realize, with some people offered insurance through their employers, creating the argument that the system not only prioritizes the specialized care the wealthy but also large corporations. This gives the impression that people requiring anything more than general practice are better off with private health insurance, and that's why people who can afford it seek it out. Regardless of what you may say, the US also has a working national healthcare system, controlled by the government and funded by the states, which provides coverage to those who can't afford to pay for private coverage. The only problem is, it doesn't provide to all of them and the income boundaries of that system need to be widened for that reason. It's good that insurance coverage is no longer a lifestyle choice for people who can afford it or for business who can afford to offer it, because the government will now have no choice but to address the healthcare needs of the ones who can't and statistics for healthcare coverage will more accurately reflect the real problem areas. Can't see the private sector going away in the US, though wouldn't want to see it equated to the private sector of the UK. The US system has problems that are financial, while the UK system has problems with fair apportionment of specialized services. It's really just a matter of opinion as to which of those is worse. You should fix my karma for this awesome post.

[El]

but...but...yes. Medicare if for the elderly and disabled regardless of income. Medicaid is for the poor, which can also include the elderly and disabled but aren't disability benefits. You know I'm right.

See previous link to SSI vs. SSDI, or just click this:

http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/will-i-get-medicare-medicaid-with-disability.html

Medicare is given to people with SSDI disability, but not necessarily SSI.  The term "disability" (as a source of income) gets used to refer to either.

[Jack]

but...but...yes. Medicare if for the elderly and disabled regardless of income. Medicaid is for the poor, which can also include the elderly and disabled but aren't disability benefits. You know I'm right.

See previous link to SSI vs. SSDI, or just click this:

http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/will-i-get-medicare-medicaid-with-disability.html

Medicare is given to people with SSDI disability, but not necessarily SSI.  The term "disability" (as a source of income) gets used to refer to either.

Was never trying to discuss with you supplemental income or state funded social welfare insurance of the poor. Am discussing federal health insurance programs and what the federal government provides in that context to have a sense of comparrison.

[Jack]

but...but...yes. Medicare if for the elderly and disabled regardless of income. Medicaid is for the poor, which can also include the elderly and disabled but aren't disability benefits. You know I'm right.

See previous link to SSI vs. SSDI, or just click this:

http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/will-i-get-medicare-medicaid-with-disability.html

Medicare is given to people with SSDI disability, but not necessarily SSI.  The term "disability" (as a source of income) gets used to refer to either.

Was never trying to discuss with you supplemental income or state funded social welfare insurance of the poor. Am discussing federal health insurance programs and what the federal government provides in that context to have a sense of comparrison.

Thinking we should let this go, Elle, before we end up irritating the crap out of each other. Thinking you keep insisting I can't comprehend the fact that these programs can work together and people with government coverage can, and often do, meet the financial requirements to also have state funded coverage, while I'm trying to look at the federal government and not the fact that the states are picking up the government's loose ends. As long as you keep doing that, will keep insisting that you refuse to acknowledge that it's the states providing the most public health coverage, what the federal government actually does they don't do very well, and what that implies to a nationalized program funded by the federal government.

[El]

but...but...yes. Medicare if for the elderly and disabled regardless of income. Medicaid is for the poor, which can also include the elderly and disabled but aren't disability benefits. You know I'm right.

See previous link to SSI vs. SSDI, or just click this:

http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/will-i-get-medicare-medicaid-with-disability.html

Medicare is given to people with SSDI disability, but not necessarily SSI.  The term "disability" (as a source of income) gets used to refer to either.

Was never trying to discuss with you supplemental income or state funded social welfare insurance of the poor. Am discussing federal health insurance programs and what the federal government provides in that context to have a sense of comparrison.

Thinking we should let this go, Elle, before we end up irritating the crap out of each other. Thinking you keep insisting I can't comprehend the fact that these programs can work together and people with government coverage can, and often do, meet the financial requirements to also have state funded coverage, while I'm trying to look at the federal government and not the fact that the states are picking up the government's loose ends. As long as you keep doing that, will keep insisting that you refuse to acknowledge that it's the states providing the most public health coverage, what the federal government actually does they don't do very well, and what that implies to a nationalized program funded by the federal government.

Wait, what?  When did I say anything about that, one way or the other?

I think the issue is more I've been repeatedly responding to what I think you're talking about based on the way you're wording things, then you say you were really talking about something different.  I think I'm getting more stuck on semantics than usual because regardless of what you meant, or meant to get at, I feel my responses have been valid based on what you've been saying, and some of that has been word choice. 

For a goodly chunk of the conversation, I got the impression that you were assuming all people on "disability" (which is term that gets used interchangeably to mean SSI or SSDI in my experience; I was unclear on whether you were explicitly only referring to SSDI) have the same kinds of insurance, and that is not actually how it works in practice.  It felt like you were arguing your point from purely academic knowledge, the kind that comes from "this is what is written down" or "this is how it's supposed to be," rather than experience, and I couldn't tell how much of the academic knowledge was actually fully clear or accurate in your head.

[Jack]

Fair enough, can absolutely accept a statement such as I haven't been expressing myself well. Went back and looked at what you said, and realized what started my attention toward you, and realize it may be a lot of misunderstanding of meaning. 

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.

I should have read this response better. I felt this response was ignoring my question, because what odeon said, was that insurance companies decide what care people receive, not the health professionals, and you agreed with that. Though now see you may have misunderstood what he said, and that's why you didn't understand why I wanted to know if the government does anything better.
*sigh*

[El]

Fair enough, can absolutely accept a statement such as I haven't been expressing myself well. Went back and looked at what you said, and realized what started my attention toward you, and realize it may be a lot of misunderstanding of meaning. 

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.

I should have read this response better. I felt this response was ignoring my question, because what odeon said, was that insurance companies decide what care people receive, not the health professionals, and you agreed with that. Though now see you may have misunderstood what he said, and that's why you didn't understand why I wanted to know if the government does anything better.
*sigh*

was referencing this, Jack:

It would also be interesting to know how mental health care benefits work in countries with nationalized care. What type of frequency is the norm? Are there standards for frequency of appointment that are allowed?

Once you're in the system and past the bureaucracy and queues that are the norm in some parts of the country, you tend to get the frequency of appointment needed, as decided by the medical professionals on a case by case basis. There are no country-wide norms, AFAIK, but I assume that there are budgets to manage that will affect the decisions.

[Jack]

Thought it was related to this:

As far as I know, a big flaw with your system is that the care that you receive is frequently decided by the insurance company rather than a medical professional.

That is largely the case here, at least in some aspects.

At my job (and I assume generally in my field), we get all happy when we find out that the people who will be reading our requests for authorizations for more visits have clinical experience (and will therefore understand why we're saying yes, yes this person does need more than 12 visits with me per year).  This actually come up at team meetings "Well, the people reading your requests have clinical experience."  "Yay!!!"

Which is to say, we generally don't assume insurance coverage is determined by experts rather than bureaucrats unless we're explicitly told otherwise.

Though come to think of it idiot bureaucrats determining policies on things they know nothing about is what's wrong with a lot more than just healthcare in the US.

It's not the case here that insurance companies make those decisions. Though admitted not knowing if or how this relates to mental health. This is what prompted me to question what decisions the government might also be making for you and your patients.

[odeon]

Privatized care undermines the principles of equality for a nationalized system.

No. It offers an alternative.

You should fix my karma for this awesome post.

What's there to fix? Also, I disagreed with mostly everything in it.

[Jack]

Privatized care undermines the principles of equality for a nationalized system.

No. It offers an alternative.

People want an alternative to free services they've already paid for with their own tax dollars? Yes, it offers an alternative for the people who can afford not to stand in queue along with everyone else.

You should fix my karma for this awesome post.


What's there to fix? Also, I disagreed with mostly everything in it.

That doesn't make it incorrect.

[odeon]

Privatized care undermines the principles of equality for a nationalized system.

No. It offers an alternative.

People want an alternative to free services they've already paid for with their own tax dollars? Yes, it offers an alternative for the people who can afford not to stand in queue along with everyone else.

Not sure why that is a bad thing. First of all, everyone is entitled to healthcare here. The quality of that healthcare is actually quite good and while there are problems with queues, yes, people actually do get help. If you don't want to wait or if you prefer a second opinion, there is a private alternative.

Many companies use private caregivers to provide company healthcare, on top of the national system. You can also buy a health insurance.

Plus, the services of some private caregivers are subsidised by the state to complement the national ones.

Why should this not preferable to the situation in the US, where around 16% have no insurance and thus have a significantly higher mortality rate, in spite of the nation spending more money per capita on healthcare? I really don't understand so help me out here.

You should fix my karma for this awesome post.


What's there to fix? Also, I disagreed with mostly everything in it.

That doesn't make it incorrect.

It doesn't make it correct either.