…why don’t you ask yourself? You said, and I’ll quote exactly what you said: “Yes, there are some states that **exclude **single, childless adults with no disabilities.”
When you said “exclude”, exclude from what exactly?
I thought I knew what you meant, but you seem to be confused, so I’ll let you explain yourself first.
Was the care you got that saved your leg “emergency care?”
The NHS covers all care, not just emergency care.
You’ve conceded that your system doesn’t cover everybody (except for “emergency care”).
Is the number of people not covered in the hundreds, in the thousands, or in the millions?
If someone needed Cardiothoracic Surgery, and were potentially a day away from loosing their leg, what diagnostic options are available to those on low incomes and don’t qualify for Medicaid, and how much would it cost? What are the waiting times for the poor and how do those waiting times compare to the NHS? Is it possible for the poor to get the same level of treatment as those in the UK?
Can you get surgery at a community clinic? Do they get to keep their leg?
…so where do poor people who don’t qualify for medicaid go to get surgery?
So a poor person with no health insurance and no money in the bank that didn’t qualify for medicaid would have access to this level of service anywhere in the United States of America?
Is what happened to you an example of “emergency care”, or did you get a whole different level of care?
Why are you so confident that a poor person with no health insurance and no money in the bank that didn’t qualify for medicaid would be able to get the same level of care as you, and be able to keep their leg? And can you do a bit better than one word answers this time?
Do you want to admit you misspoke, and actually they do not qualify for Medicaid?
Also, for the benefit of us not as familiar with the US Medical system as you claim to be, could you please provide a link which explains how people such as I’ve described above obtain emergency care?
Some people with urgent medical needs may not wish to wait until they’re 65 years old, and may have trouble getting pregnant, but they always have the option of blinding themselves. Perhaps a non-blind person seeking medical care is one of those lazy persons right-wingers preach against, not industrious enough to do what it takes to meet their needs.
Oh no. I get so tired of the same ignorances being repeated over and over and over and over and over and OVER again.
Yes, some hospitals have an obligation not to dismiss applicants unless they’re no longer in immediate danger of dying, but that is NOT the same as providing needed care.
Moreover, having stabilized you so you might not die immediately, the hospital is still free, if unlikely, to send you an exorbitant bill, and even to sue to garnish your wages.
Pro-tip for Magiver: repeating non-truths over and over will win you friends only among idealogues who care nothing for truth. Writing “Yes, I was wrong!” will improve your standing here. The choice is yours.
I think part of improving the nhs needs to be an understanding and acceptance by the population that they have a personal responsibility for aspects of their health. I fully support a free at the point of use system but this does make people blind to the burden they place on the system when they present with self inflicted or minor ailments.
There were some earlier comments about funding levels and the political parties…one in particular about the “Nasty Tories”…I don’t think that’s fair. All political parties genuinely want a good functioning nhs that is free for users. The difference is that the Tory party at least recognises that there needs to be at least some financial responsibility for the country to borrow and function in the long term. I’d love to spend more on the nhs but not so much that future generations are burdened with Greek levels of debt. Spending may have been high under Blair but his minister left a note on the desk saying there was no money left.
That’s true but completely irrelevant. Labour vastly increased NHS funding as this graph shows. NHS funding doubled from 1997 to 2007. And the Tories nearly doubled it too from 1979 to 1997. That it remained below the European average is by the by.
Except that they don’t, by and large, as supported by both statistics and personal experience reported here, so why would repeating that non-truth improve his position?
Its what I meant by people being so used to priority by ability to pay, that they find it hard to grasp prioritizing by medical need.
Magiver, in the US many people are uninsured, underinsured or face other financial barriers to healthcare such as large co-pays and non-coverage and other denial of payment from the insurance side. This leads to them not seeking medical service or delaying it until the issue is critical. Since these delays are not grounded in medical evaluations, they are spread across the spectrum of seriousness. And so these delays pose a far larger risk to health than anything found in the NHS system. As seen in the comparison of outcomes.
I’ll also just repeat myself from post # 166: "Magiver, in post # 86, post # 105 and post # 120 you’ve repeatedly asserted that the US has health care for the poor. Yet my impression from reading boards like this one is that poor people in the US have severe issues with affording healthcare. I also posted a cite showing that tens of thousands of people die due to lack of healthcare. This is certainly very far away
How do you feel the US healthcare for the poor stacks up to the NHS? In coverage, results, public health etc?"
In a system with UHC, it may happen that someone is mistakenly classified as lower risk and gets complications (including death) while waiting for further treatment.
But in a system without UHC, there is a percentage of the population which doesn’t even reach triage. The possibility of having to wait exists the same (no matter how much patients pay, doctors still do not grow in flower pots, or in five minutes), but it only affects that part of the population which actually gets to see a doctor.
Magiver is refusing to acknowledge both that there is a part of the US population who don’t have apropriate access to medical treatment and that “having access” does not equal “having instantaneous access” or instantaneous procedures.
People who don’t go to the doctor because they’re being macho exist in both cases; for purposes of this discussion let’s say that their percentiles are similar.
Quick antidote. A friend with poor insurance had an ingrown toenail. Her deductible is high, so she would have had to pay our of pocket to see her primary care physician, then pay even more when he referred her to a podiatrist. Sour she decides to handle it herself. Long story short, it gets infected and she goes to the emergency room. What would have cost hundreds now costs thousands.
Which reminds me, one episode of a TV documentary series here on GPs in action (why so many people seem happy to have their discussions about their boils, rashes, digestive problems and depressions shown on TV mystifies me, but that doesn’t stop me watching) showed one of the GPs removing an ingrowing toenail on the spot under local anaesthetic (not a pretty sight). This isn’t to say all GPs could or would do so without onward referral, no doubt it depends on the individual circumstances, or what extra training a GP might have had.
