"LIFE'S TOO SHORT TO EAT BAD NUTS"

current | archives | profile | notes | guestbook | photos | rings | contact | host

Perching here and gathering my thoughts ...

More on the subject of nationalised heathcare

15 March 2004 ~ 21:23

Thought people might be interested in reading some extracts from a forum I am a member of. The following extracts are from a thread on the health and medical section of the forum entitled �What to be grateful for.� The first part is me:

�My DH is against the idea of the NHS. His friend John is too. He dared say to me �you need to get rid of the NHS...� grrrr! Like we'd really see the money we pay in taxes reduced! No way! The tax burden in the UK is the same as the US, but in the US only the poorest people get public healthcare. Probably providing just a small section of the public with free healthcare costs the US as much as it does in the UK to provide it for all residents (even students and tourists), because UK treatment is far more cost-effective. But in some states, even if you had no income whatsover, you do not qualify for Medicare. Don�t know exactly how they expect you to pay. I guess in Kerry�s case, they expect her parents to pay. What if she had no parents?

I told DH�s friend that if he thinks the government has no duty to provide heathcare, then why should it provide education, or police or a fire service? Let those with kids pay for an education. Let those who have a house fire pay the fire service to put it out. Get the picture?

In my opinion healthcare is the most important service a country should provide its citizens. Why is public education OK but not public healthcare? I know if I had a child with cancer and I had a straight choice�do I choose to have that child treated, or do I chose to have that child educated? The answer is clear. A sick child that can read is far worse off than an illiterate but healthy child.

Sorry to be so emotive but I totally cannot understand how any government can not provide even a basic healthcare system to all its citizens!�

***************

�On the health insurance being tied to your job�if you have a pre-existing condition many insurance companies won�t cover you or they will but after so many months/years. Sucks, but that is the way it is.

Another downside to insurance there (at least when I was there)�the insurance we had at my company was like this: Employee�s b�day first in the year, spouses second�you took the co�s insurance.

Spouse�s b�day first, yours second�you went with spouses insurance. Really bad if your insurance is superior to spouses!

If you were made redundant and spouse did not work or have insurance (or you were single) to have COBRA to continue the same coverage the price was absolutely astronomical.�

***************

�Reading all this has just made me think there are some really sinister things going on�maybe not intentionally but somewhere the industry has missed the big picture and what could come of it.�

***************

�Purchasing the insurance privately makes COBRA look like a bargain! We were offered COBRA when our son hit his 19th birthday, as he could no longer be covered. He�s not a full-time student (which would allow continued coverage) and he doesn�t yet have a job that covers him, so he�s on his own. He�s young, strong, healthy, and hasn�t yet found a job with health insurance coverage. We keep our fingers crossed.�

*************

�Or if you�re like me and have a �pre-existing condition,� most companies won�t even take me or if they do, it�s for an unbelieveable cost! Like it�s my fault that I got sick!�

The healthcare situation in America needs a serious rethink among doctors, politicians and citizenry. Their well-being is in their hands.


Stored nuts | Future acorns


-