To balance the score, we hear some great stories about the US system here in Canada.
For example, there was a guy on Extreme Makeover who was, among other things, given plastic surgery at age 30-something for his cleft palate and deformed upper teeth. hat of course would have been covered at birth in Canada, no matter where he was or what his parents’ income; including any transport required to the appropriate hospital. no charge to the parents. Apparently not so in the USA.
When my dad (in the USA) needed a gallstone removed at age 65, he was told Blue Cross would not cover it because gallstones take years to grow so it was a pre-existing condition. It took a bit of yelling for them to approve the cost. No such concern in Canada, of course.
A co-worker mentioned his daughters who went down to the USA as nurses. They eventually came back to work in Canada, and he said one of the hardest parts for them to get used to in the USA was turning away patients who could not pay for treatment but needed it.
I also heard of a girl who got leukemia; her father’s health insurnace covered the whole treatment, but then she had hit her lifetime cap. Apparently, she had better not break a leg or need any other hospitalization as a minor. Not sure what happen when she turns 18 - can she get insurance?
Why would anyone believe something so obviously ridiculous? Your friend, I’m afraid, sounds like a singularly misinformed individual. I’d advise not believing anything he says.
Unless that particular provision of the Affordable Care Act is repealed, she won’t have any lifetime spending cap when she gets her own policy. Also, I think she can still be covered under her parents’ insurance until she’s in her mid-20s.
The insurance company can still set an annual spending cap, but even that is being phased out over the next couple years.
I don’t recall all the provisions of the ACA, but, at least for new policies, several previously used pre-existing conditions also can’t be the basis for denial of coverage. I’m pretty sure gallstones couldn’t be used as a pre-existing condition after that provision phases in (if it hasn’t, already).
There are a lot of people who don’t like the ACA as a whole, but I think they’d be surprised if they knew exactly what they’d be giving up if it got repealed.
The statement “The US has the best healthcare in the world!” is a lie by nearly any objective measure. In some cases, superior care may be available to a few, but nearly every country with publicly funded healthcare, including freaking Cuba, achieves better outcomes than happen under the US system. None are more expensive. In many cases, non-urgent procedures will involve a wait. Part of that wait is so that urgent cases will have immediate access to the resources.
There are political and business entities that are motivated to maintain the current system. When presented with an anecdote disparaging toward another country’s health system you might consider the source and check any verifiable information.
“my friend heard” “there was this guy” “everyone knows”…these phrases turn up a lot in urban legends. There is never a name, place, or date you can fact check. That should be a giant red flag.
When I first started on medication I was prescribed a month’s worth at £7.20 (before the latest increase). After a few months the doc changed the prescription to 2 month’s worth and it was still £7.20. Now I’m on two different meds so it’s £14.80 every 2 months. One sort of sneaky thing the doc did was put 75mg aspirin on the prescription. The pharmacy was about to charge me £7.20 for it, but checked that it was the same as the OTC stuff so crossed it off the prescription list and sold it to me for the £0.52 OTC price.
Yes, and there are many, many other off-topic factual statements that don’t belong in this discussion. This thread is about explaining how the UK healthcare system works, not about the beliefs of American politicians.
To me, the OP looked like a legitimate question from someone who knows little about how thinks work in the UK. If I’m wrong, that would mean it was trolling and I’d either shut it down or move it somewhere. As it is, it’s a question with a real factual answer, so I think it’s appropriate.
Yes, sometimes moderating is subjective. I do my best.
Thanks for the link, what I was trying to say was, perhaps that’s [old guy being taken off the transplant list] where the OP’s friend got their notions from…?
When we still had full price prescriptions up here, the doc prescribed me Loretadine which was the same as could be bought over the counter for much less. (£2 ish for a month) The pharmacist spotted this straight away. If you know a good pharmacist then hang on to them.
Are the doctors allowed to prescribe meds that aren’t supplied by the pharmacy? Can they get away with saying “Well, you could pay £7.40 for paracetomol, but you should really get the same stuff from Tesco for 20p” or is is down to accountability that it all goes through the oficial channels?
I’ve had doctors tell me to buy something rather than prescribe it because it’s cheaper to buy over the counter than to pay prescription fees, butI’im guessing that prescribing something is much more likely to make the patient actually take the medicine. Chemists will generally point out when something is cheaper to buy over the counter too.
[moderator note]
Political jabs are not allowed in GQ, glee. Don’t do this again.
No warning issued.
[/moderator note]
[/QUOTE]
I certainly didn’t intend any political jab.
Santorum was featured on the TV news here as saying that “The UK National Health Service (NHS) devastated Britain” and that “the NHS caused the downfall of the British Empire.”
When challenged by a BBC reporter to justify these statements, he mumbled something about how Margaret Thatcher was unable to achieve anything due to the NHS.
I stand by my statement that every political party here supports the NHS (including the Conservatives - Thatcher’s party) and that the NHS is popular with the public.
Given that, surely I’m entitled to point out that Santorum (like the person in the OP) knows nothing about the NHS?
To me, the OP looked like a legitimate question from someone who knows little about how thinks work in the UK. If I’m wrong, that would mean it was trolling and I’d either shut it down or move it somewhere. As it is, it’s a question with a real factual answer, so I think it’s appropriate.
Yes, sometimes moderating is subjective. I do my best.
[/QUOTE]
If it’s trolling, it’s remarkably ineffect. All it did was bring up evidence that universal public health is superior to what passes for American health care, unless you are lucky.
So basically, the story was correct when it was told to me, before Obamacare came along, and will return to being correct should Obamacare be repealed? I know my dad’s Blue Cross gallstone woes in 1997 were accurate.
As further indication how wrong the OP is, I know in Canada one problem they have is a shortage of (government-funded) beds in old folks’ homes. I have heard of several cases, including in my family, where seniors are hospitalized and after a doctor evaluation, they are kept in a very expensive hospital bed for weeks or months until a home space becomes available. The doctors and social workers determine the person is no longer capable of living alone, and so must be in fulltime care home. No dumping them out the door or on skid row.
In fact, there was an item in the news recently from western Canada somewhere where the elderly lady went to the emergency room for treatment, and instead of examining her, the doctor looked at her chart and told her she was fine and should go home. When she insisted she was not fine, the nurse there decided to be a bitch and told her, “if you insist on being admitted, we will have you put in a nursing home and you will never go home.” She left, and dropped dead at home on her doorstep. So that’s the latest method of threatening uncoperative seniors.
IME they just recommend that you buy it yourself. I mean, the prescription is the same regardless of what the item is, so if they gave you prescription for Tesco paracetamol then you’d still pay the full prescription price (if you used that prescription rather than decided to buy the paracetamol yourself). There’s nothing they can do about that.
But if you have a season ticket or free prescriptions then you don’t pay for those individual prescriptions anyway.
IIRC, most pharmacies in Canada, or at least Ontario, are authorized to substitute the generic drug if it’s cheaper and available. Blue Cross and similar companies who provide pharmacy plans for employees also have requirements to use generics where available. Thus, even moreso than before, drugs are only cash cows for big pharma while the patent is still in force.
Unlike what the posts seem to be saying about NHS and Britain, in Canada drugs are not covered - unless you are a senior, or in hospital, welfare, etc. Thus it is a common benefit for employers. The last place I worked at, it was the single most expensive benefit, even more than pensions. (IIRC There was a big stink in the news when one of the chemotherapy drugs was converted from being administered intravenously in a hospital visit to being a take-home pill. This meant the expensive drug was no longer free to a lot of patients.)
I understand your position, and agree that Santorum has made inaccurate statements. The problem is that so many threads in GQ get turned into American political debates. This one is about the NHS in the UK. If you make a negative comment about Santorum, somebody will feel the need to defend him. Next thing you know, we’re not talking about the UK, but about the US presidential race. I’m just trying to keep things on track.
Beyond this point, we should talk about this in ATMB instead of this thread.