june gloom on 23/3/2012 at 20:00
And then probably spend all day bitching about how they miss having forums to spam.
SubJeff on 23/3/2012 at 21:38
lol
That is some seriously good spamming though.
BrokenArts on 24/3/2012 at 16:11
Some of my friends that do not have health insurance, and have needed procedures done, have paid cash. Kind of a simple thing, and goes without saying, but, paying cash for some procedures is cheaper than dealing with insurance, and for a lot of us, we can't afford it. Minor procedures mind you. Ask for the cash price. A mammogram for me cost $60.00 cash price.
A friend of mine had a growth taken off her vocal cords, she had to save up a couple of thousand to have it done, overall it was cheaper paying by cash.
SubJeff on 24/3/2012 at 20:36
I really wonder how the NHS compares to either insurance or paying for procedures, as you describe BA, in the USA. In 2008/9 I think the average figure paid per person per year to the NHS was about £2000. This is taken out of our tax and national insurance contributions of course. Anything you get on the NHS is then (practically) free (provided it's been okayed by NICE).
How does that stack up?
DDL on 26/3/2012 at 08:47
That's not necessarily an appropriate comparison, though. For instance, of that 2000 quid, you might use "none of it" in a given year, but with the NHS you know that it has nevertheless paid for actual medical treatment for someone, even if that person isn't you. In terms of net medical benefits to the country as a whole, it's difficult to argue against the NHS.
Admittedly a lot of cash probably also goes into lining the pockets of like, five hundred thousand middlemanagers, but that's still marginally preferable to lining the pockets of insurance companies and their lawyers.
(though I can see how something like this might grate against the "my money should be spent on my health" viewpoint)
SubJeff on 26/3/2012 at 09:08
Yes, you might not but my question was more about cost vs cost. How much does medical insurance cost in the US? It doesn't matter if you don't "use" it all in the NHS each year - you probably wont use it all in the USA.
And you are right about managers, there are too many of them. Over 70% of NHS cost is on salaries too, iirc.
DDL on 26/3/2012 at 09:21
I'm pretty sure that cost for cost, the US comes out as
considerably more expensive.
Arguably, it'd have to be: at least some of that cash (and indeed, far too much of it) is going to lawyers whose
entire purpose is to prevent the rest of that cash being spent on actual healthcare.
Ok, it's wikipedia, so massive pinch of salt territory, but
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system)
Net expenditure per capita in the US is about double what it is in the US, according to the WHO. Though that's "spending on health", which is a terribly vague definition (and..hah, following the link to the study informs you that, yes, conservatives in the US have been highly critical of the methodology...well, there's a surprise).
EDIT: also, new favourite line in a conservative argument: "Americans outlive people in every other Western country, when controlled for homicides" :D:D:D
