Without making any kind of political statement one way or the other, it seemed to me that reading firsthand information from people who experience various forms of healthcare insurance would be helpful for each of us when forming our opinions on what we like or don't like about the insurance we have or that which is being discussed and proposed by Congress. We've already had some discussions here about private insurance, VA insurance, the Public Health Service, and Medicare, and even the healthcare provided by our government to native Americans.

Following is an e-mail that was sent to me, copying a message that my friend received from a friend in England. It's pretty self-explanatory...
--------------------------------------------
Dear Bill,

You are welcome to forward my opinion on to friends in the U.S. if you like.

As you know, I am an American living in England for 10+ years. During my time in the U.K. I have become rather expert in the workings of the National Health Service here. The untold story in the United States is that this system works quite well! We have actually cancelled our top-up private health insurance. ("Top-up" insurance is readily available here and many people buy such policies to supplement the care provided by the NHS. It is similar to the "secondary" insurance policies that Americans with Medicare buy to lessen their co-pays or deductions and be more attractive patients to doctors who are hesitant to accept Medicare insurance alone. It's used in the U.K. to assure more expansive or quicker healthcare for conditions that are non-life threatening.)

As UK residents we are entitled to the nationalized healthcare offered in any EU country we visit as well as in England. This information does not seem to be commonly known in the US, but it is viewed as a tremendous advantage to Europeans who travel about the continent frequently.

My personal experience has included:

• Trips to the emergency room with young children (they are given triage priority)
• Regular immunizations (free)
• Visits to an internist with same day appointments when you call at 8:00 am
• All prescriptions for children are free
• All prescriptions for adults the cost is about $10.00, no matter what drug
• House calls! I had trouble with healing of an incision after foot surgery. It was the weekend so they sent a nurse to the house to assess me. The doctor would come out if needed.
• Pediatric surgery at a NHS hospital was on a ward (like the Madeleine books). However, my child was the only patient there. The nurses served me tea and cookies while I waited.
• Swine flu response: excellent. My husband had it. We were told not to come to the surgery (doctors office). We followed the online flow chart. He qualified for tamiflu and was given a code. I went to my nearest dispensing hospital with his ID and the code and was immediately given the medication at no charge.
• PAP smears for women are done every 3 years, annual mammograms start at age 50. The effectiveness of cancer screening and other preventive procedures has achieved results far better than the U.S. and many other countries, information that never seems to be published in the American periodicals we read.
• We have a National Health Service dentist as well. All treatment for children is free. An adult check-up and cleaning costs less than $25.00. Repair of my crown on an emergency basis cost $50.00.
• Children are given free eye exams and glasses if needed every other year.

The downside to the National Health Service is that if your health issue is not life-threatening, you have to wait. Waiting times vary regionally. For example, a hip replacement can take 18 months. But such waits can be avoided by buying top-up insurance. I have a friend who is using a private top-up option so his surgery will take place within the month. Top-up policies for families like ours usually cost less than $200/month.

When I needed major kidney surgery I opted to use private insurance. The waiting time would have been as much as 4 months. I had the private option so I took it. The same doctor would have been my surgeon either way. The hospital would have been different.
-------------------------------
The American living in England goes on to provide a statistical analysis of death rates as the result of cancer. With the preventive programs commonly used in the U.K., their deathrate per 100,000 citizens was 235.5. The deathrate for cancer in the U.S., where preventive programs are less common, more expensive and often not covered by private insurance policies was 321.9 deaths per 100,000. All but one of the EU countries, all of which have national healthcare, were substantially better than the deathrate for cancer experienced in the U.S.

Again, I provide this firsthand report for informational purposes. Before we embrace the often bitter criticism of "socialized medicine", should at least understand how that sort of system works for real people so that we might compare it to what we have or what our government is planning as "healthcare reforms".

Great post. Thank you. If you are willing to pay for "socialized medicine", it can be truly great. Are Americans willing to pay the taxes needed to support the health care reforms that are required to make the serious changes? I think not. Are we Americans going to accept the 70% income taxes that are common throughout the European Union? Again I think not.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Without making any kind of political statement one way or the other, it seemed to me that reading firsthand information from people who experience various forms of healthcare insurance would be helpful for each of us when forming our opinions on what we like or don't like about the insurance we have or that which is being discussed and proposed by Congress. We've already had some discussions here about private insurance, VA insurance, the Public Health Service, and Medicare, and even the healthcare provided by our government to native Americans.

Following is an e-mail that was sent to me, copying a message that my friend received from a friend in England. It's pretty self-explanatory...
--------------------------------------------
Dear Bill,

You are welcome to forward my opinion on to friends in the U.S. if you like.

As you know, I am an American living in England for 10+ years. During my time in the U.K. I have become rather expert in the workings of the National Health Service here. The untold story in the United States is that this system works quite well! We have actually cancelled our top-up private health insurance. ("Top-up" insurance is readily available here and many people buy such policies to supplement the care provided by the NHS. It is similar to the "secondary" insurance policies that Americans with Medicare buy to lessen their co-pays or deductions and be more attractive patients to doctors who are hesitant to accept Medicare insurance alone. It's used in the U.K. to assure more expansive or quicker healthcare for conditions that are non-life threatening.)

As UK residents we are entitled to the nationalized healthcare offered in any EU country we visit as well as in England. This information does not seem to be commonly known in the US, but it is viewed as a tremendous advantage to Europeans who travel about the continent frequently.

My personal experience has included:

• Trips to the emergency room with young children (they are given triage priority)
• Regular immunizations (free)
• Visits to an internist with same day appointments when you call at 8:00 am
• All prescriptions for children are free
• All prescriptions for adults the cost is about $10.00, no matter what drug
• House calls! I had trouble with healing of an incision after foot surgery. It was the weekend so they sent a nurse to the house to assess me. The doctor would come out if needed.
• Pediatric surgery at a NHS hospital was on a ward (like the Madeleine books). However, my child was the only patient there. The nurses served me tea and cookies while I waited.
• Swine flu response: excellent. My husband had it. We were told not to come to the surgery (doctors office). We followed the online flow chart. He qualified for tamiflu and was given a code. I went to my nearest dispensing hospital with his ID and the code and was immediately given the medication at no charge.
• PAP smears for women are done every 3 years, annual mammograms start at age 50. The effectiveness of cancer screening and other preventive procedures has achieved results far better than the U.S. and many other countries, information that never seems to be published in the American periodicals we read.
• We have a National Health Service dentist as well. All treatment for children is free. An adult check-up and cleaning costs less than $25.00. Repair of my crown on an emergency basis cost $50.00.
• Children are given free eye exams and glasses if needed every other year.

The downside to the National Health Service is that if your health issue is not life-threatening, you have to wait. Waiting times vary regionally. For example, a hip replacement can take 18 months. But such waits can be avoided by buying top-up insurance. I have a friend who is using a private top-up option so his surgery will take place within the month. Top-up policies for families like ours usually cost less than $200/month.

When I needed major kidney surgery I opted to use private insurance. The waiting time would have been as much as 4 months. I had the private option so I took it. The same doctor would have been my surgeon either way. The hospital would have been different.
-------------------------------
The American living in England goes on to provide a statistical analysis of death rates as the result of cancer. With the preventive programs commonly used in the U.K., their deathrate per 100,000 citizens was 235.5. The deathrate for cancer in the U.S., where preventive programs are less common, more expensive and often not covered by private insurance policies was 321.9 deaths per 100,000. All but one of the EU countries, all of which have national healthcare, were substantially better than the deathrate for cancer experienced in the U.S.

Again, I provide this firsthand report for informational purposes. Before we embrace the often bitter criticism of "socialized medicine", should at least understand how that sort of system works for real people so that we might compare it to what we have or what our government is planning as "healthcare reforms".

Very interesting and a very good argument for "socialized medicine". My major problem with it here is its administration. Considering the messes everything else seem to be in, I don't think we have anyone that could or would oversee it successfully. It might be different if we could eliminate the power struggles and have someone who truly cared about the people instead of themselves. So far, it ain't happenin'. I don't think we can do anything in any direction until that problem gets solved.

Originally Posted by gemorc

...If you are willing to pay for "socialized medicine", it can be truly great. Are Americans willing to pay the taxes needed to support the health care reforms that are required to make the serious changes? I think not....

In my opinion, we probably shouldn't confuse tax rates with healthcare costs when deciding what kinds of reforms are needed. In 2007 (the latest year available), the U.S. spent almost 2-1/2 times the amount per capita for healthcare than did the U.K. The numbers were $5,711 for every man, woman and child in the U.S., compared to $2,317 in the U.K.

The point many are making is that we already are paying far more for our current system of healthcare than any of the citizens in countries with national healthcare are paying in taxes. Our costs are rising at a rate four times the rate of inflation and are projected to consume one-third of the entire GDP of the U.S. in just ten years. Obviously, that level of cost increases are unsustainable.

Whether we make payments in the form of insurance premiums or in taxes, Americans will still wind up with less disposable income unless we implement reforms to reduce the costs of healthcare. The scary development is that many citizens are "avoiding" the loss of disposable income by either voluntarily dropping health insurance or losing it because their employer can no longer afford it and stops offering the benefit. Either way, the health of Americans will continue to decline as out-of-pocket costs rise, unless something dramatic is done soon.

Maybe the way to think about it is...inaction by our government to institute reforms to substantially reduce healthcare costs will have the same effect as if they actually voted for an increase in tax rates. We will have less to spend after paying for our healthcare. And with lessened emphasis on prevention, we'll actually be less healthy.

Originally Posted by dillywho

...My major problem with it here is its administration. Considering the messes everything else seem to be in, I don't think we have anyone that could or would oversee it successfully...

I know my responses sound like I'm prosteletyzing for national healthcare, but that's not my intent. I'm simply trying to respond with facts, many of which we've already discussed on this forum.

In response to your concern that no one--I presume you mean the government--could oversee a system of national healthcare successfully, our government is already doing that. Thru programs like Medicare, VA insurance, Medicaid, the National Health Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the system of Army and Navy hospitals, etc., the federal government already provides health insurance to almost 50% of Americans. In exchanges on various threads here in this forum, we've pretty clearly determined that almost no one who participates in these programs would trade them for a policy from a for-profit private insurer. Most feel that their costs would increase and the degree to which they could rely on private insurance in the future would be less certain. In almost all respects users are satisfied with the care provided by those programs--far more satisfied than many who have experienced problems with for-profit insurers.

No one is saying that any of the government programs operate without fault--they certainly do. But to base our personal conclusions on what the solution to our healthcare crisis might be, it's probably an overstatement to say that the government is incapable of running such programs.

VK,

I must strenuously disagree with your characterizations of VA and other government provided medical services. The Malcolm Randall VA hospital in Gainesville closely resembles the hospitals we saw in 1950’s horror films (first hand knowledge). The VA cuts off drugs that may be critical to a veteran’s health for cost purposes. In my case, my civilian neurologist considered it essential that I stay on the drug, Plavix to prevent ongoing TIA’s. The VA response cut off the drug after a period of two months without so much as a neurological consult and despite my civilian neurologist stating it was malpractice. Again, first hand knowledge. Fortunately my civilian neurologist kept my prescription current, so I could continue to buy the drugs at my expense. The VA message, “Go home and die, that way you won’t cost too much.”

My grandson suffers from learning disabilities and needs to be seen by a pediatric neurologist. He is supposes to be covered by another government program –Tricare. The only problem is a total lack of pediatric neurologists that participate in the program. Oh well, kid, take two more HDAD drugs and your parents can pay for decent treatment if they want.

If you believe these to be isolated incidents, please read this article by a well-respect Atlanta pediatric ophthalmologist. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...re_and_me.html

His experience demonstrates that government programs are severely rationed and will go to the point of allowing children to go blind, so long as it meets treatment criteria and the drugs needed are not on the ‘approved list.’ How many children do you want this to happen to, before you conclude that government-run healthcare is a very real danger to you and your loved ones?

Originally Posted by BBQMan

...I must strenuously disagree with your characterizations of VA and other government provided medical services. ...

Thanks, BBQ. The objective of this exercise was to try to get real examples of "government option" healthcare rather than relying on the emotional demonstrations by some attending the town meetings.

Your own experience is valuable input. All I can say is that many who have posted wouldn't give up "their" Medicare; some were totally happy with their VA care. I wouldn't give up Medicare either, although with the constant decline in payments to doctors and hospitals enacted by Congress, I wouldn't want to rely on it as my only insurance, without secondary coverage. I know little about the VA hospitals or the care they provide other than what those of you that do post here. So far the VA reports are mixed.

The more input we can get, the more informed we will be regarding what our representatives are planning for us as they negotiate the various reforms that will become a part of the soon-to-be-considered legislation.

BBQMan, I can't fully agree with you about the VA in Gainesville or the portion of the VA system that serves S. GA. N. FL. (Gainesville & TV). My husband has been on Plavix for over 2 years and his doctor at the VA just renewed again last week. He has never had a problem getting any medications or care. He has never received anything but terrific care since we came to FL.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

No one is saying that any of the government programs operate without fault--they certainly do. But to base our personal conclusions on what the solution to our healthcare crisis might be, it's probably an overstatement to say that the government is incapable of running such programs.

I agree that the government could be capable of running such programs, but again look at what they are saying themselves about Medicare "almost broke", etc. In the right hands, it could be done. With the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Franks just to name a few, no way.

Originally Posted by dillywho

BBQMan, I can't fully agree with you about the VA in Gainesville or the portion of the VA system that serves S. GA. N. FL. (Gainesville & TV). My husband has been on Plavix for over 2 years and his doctor at the VA just renewed again last week. He has never had a problem getting any medications or care. He has never received anything but terrific care since we came to FL.

Dilly, I am glad that your husband received the care he had clearly earned. I know that I did not, but recognize that no personal experience can be universally applied. One question, has your husband been a patient at Malcolm Randall VA hospital in Gainesville? I know of my experience there and wonder if your husband's was equally bad.

Yes, he has been a patient at the Malcolm Randall facility in Gainesville and I cannot say enough good about his care there. He also has to go there to see the neurologist and for speech therapy. Following a post-surgical stroke almost 7 years ago (before we moved here), he was left with what is known as expressive aphasia which means he cannot verbalize what he wants to say. What he says and what he wants to say are most usually totally different. They have also furnished him with a device which I program to say what he wants to say and he just selects the correct button and it talks for him. He underwent sleep study there and was diagnosed with sleep apnea. They also set him up with a CPAP unit. Both devices were at no charge and are maintained by them at no charge. He is not retired military (he served during the Korean conflict) so we have to pay a physician co-pay and a hospital co-pay. I'm not sure, but I think retired military do not.

I was told by his VA physician here in TV that the $8 per month co-pay for drugs regardless of whether it would be $4 or even sometimes free at other places helps to offset the cost of the more expensive ones such as the Plavix. The patent should run out on Plavix at some point and then it, too, will be available as generic. Meanwhile, we only pay $8.

As you stated, not everyone has the same experience anywhere they go. I know many have not been happy and have been quite upset with The Villages Hospital, namely the ER, but he also had a good experience with them. Yes, we were there a long time, but most of that time was spent doing tests & x-rays and waiting for the results which just take time. I have spent longer wait times in some doctors' offices.

I hope it goes better for you in the future. Meanwhile, you might discuss it with them again. I know some civilian doctors only prescribe Plavix for a short time and theirs has nothing to do with holding down costs. It just varies with each patient and their particular need.

Originally Posted by dillywho

...look at what they are saying themselves about Medicare "almost broke", etc. In the right hands, it could be done. With the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Franks just to name a few, no way.

I think we need to separate the operation of the Medicare insurance system from the way Congress has chosen to fund it over many years. It would be like having a terrific private insurance policy from a company that for whatever reason chose not to raise the premiums to reflect the true cost. In the case of Medicare, Congresses for many years have taken the easier political path of reducing payments to Medicare providers and then simply "making up the difference" with yearly special appropriations to keep Medicare afloat. Yes, the actions...or I should say inactions...of Congress have weakened Medicare, but that's not to say that as an insurance operation it is mismanaged and doesn't work. The part that is mismanaged is the role of Congress in funding it properly. Yes, that's definitely a part of the Medicare equation, and probably always will be. But as an insurance provider for healthcare costs, most users think it works pretty well.

I've said this before here in this forum, but what it boils down to is that Medicare premiums or other qualifications must increase in order to correct this "defect". In particular, before all is said and done I think "means testing" will become a part of the Medicare formula. It makes little sense to me that taxpayers should be saddled with the costs of providing free healthcare insurance to those who can't afford it, while at the same time providing deeply discounted healthcare insurance to the many who are perfectly capable of paying much higher premiums. I'll be surprised if that's not the direction we're headed.

But of course I'm speaking as a former businessman, not a member of Congress who will be seeking re-election to one of those sweet jobs in the next few years. Left to them, they still may take a less logical, politically-motivated path to creating legislation, which may not fix Medicare funding as it should.

If that is the case, then will we no longer pay premiums (going higher, too, I understand) for Medicare out of our SS checks monthly? Between that, my monthly supplement premium (which also keeps going up), drug coverage and co-pays (also going up) for me, co-pays to the VA for hubby, we shell out some $500.00 a month already. We don't have a lot of money and even this is a struggle for us. I feel we're kinda in the proverbial "between a rock and a hard place". We both worked for years, paid in for years (no choice), saved diligently, and like so many others, took a major hit to 401k rollovers. I have been retired for almost 12 years now and with the hits, I now have less than $2,000.00 of what I rolled over. Don't get me wrong, we are still very blessed, but we are definitely anywhere but easy street. I just don't care to see worse, and Pelosi and Co. as far as I can see are definitely worse with their proposals.

Oops, I mistated something. I now have less than $2,000 above what I rolled over.

Originally Posted by dillywho

...Question for You, VK...

I missed your question, Dilly. But at the end, you noted that you were more blessed than many other Americans. I'd have to agree. Many of us currently have healthcare insurance and are in a position to complain about increasing costs. There are tens of millions of others who have only the local hospital ER to rely on. We've all seen the news clips--the young woman with diagnosed cancer, with no money or no insurance, etc., etc.

When you say you don't trust Pelosi and company, unfortunately we all have to trust Ms. Pelosi and the other members of Congress. We've all read the statistics, and they're real. Eighty thousand Americans or so dying each year because they have no health insurance; one American filing for bankruptcy every thirty seconds because they can't pay their doctor and hospital bills, 45 million with no insurance at all. And on and on. The numbers are real.

Congresses for the last 30-40 years have put off doing anything about the impending healthcare crisis. Most agree that we're on the edge of the cliff right now. The failure of the 111th Congress to do something to reduce the spiraling cost of healthcare is the equivalent of pushing the country off the cliff.

Note that I said they must reduce the cost of healthcare. When we listen to what the elected reps say, what is written about the proposals, what the pundits say, we should all be asking the question...does this plan or program reduce the cost of healthcare in the U.S.?

Providing health insurance to 45 million people who don't have it will reduce costs in the long term. But in the short term it will have to be paid for. Same with improved diagnostic information technology, preventive care or wellness programs, and so on. I implore anyone who reads this to thoughtfully consider whether what our Congress proposes and passes will really "bend the cost curve". If whatever reforms that are passed don't do that, it's simply another failure of our politicians to do the right thing.

But, answering a question that I'm not sure you asked, Dilly, we're stuck with Pelosi, Reid, Grassley, McConnell, Rangel, Boehner, etc. as the ones who will have to craft the legislation to correct this critical problem. As much as we don't trust them, we're stuck with them. They're the ones who were elected to represent us. They'e the ones who will have to solve the problem.

Remember, as I've said in this forum many times before--if we don't like what's going on in Washington, we can change the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate in November, 2010--only a year or so from now. All we need to do to get rid of all those that we have been so critical of is to not vote for anyone who is currently a member of Congress. It's really a pretty simple solution.

In the meantime all we can hope and pray for is that the 111th Congress finally does the right thing, not just the thing that they think will get them re-elected, or even worse the thing that the special interests paid them to do. Remember the key question: will this reduce the cost of healthcare in the U.S.?

I'll try to clarify for you. I do not feel that I am receiving "deeply discounted insurance when I could pay more". I can barely pay for what you refer to as "deeply discounted" now and am aware that we will be paying more come next year. My resources are not going up and at that rate, it is not really difficult to understand why so many are uninsured. Medicare premiums go up, supplement premiums increase yearly, drug coverage premiums increase yearly as do the co-pays, etc. As for drug coverage, if you failed to sign up in time (thank God I did), then the government penalizes you and not just for the time you missed....it is forever. My neighbor got caught in that scenario and is stuck from now on. She thought that she had coverage equivalent to Part D and found out later that she did not. The powers that be thought so, too, because they didn't fully understand it either and she was led astray. The government's response..."sorry, too bad, but you pay the penalty or pay for your own drugs 100%". I fear that the legislation that comes about will come with just as much understanding on both their parts and the people's and the response will be exactly what she got...."too bad" when it proves too costly.

As for replacing all of them, I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, we too often don't get anyone any better because that is all that runs or we get those who have been coached by and are beholden to their predecessors. Seems the only way to get elected is to have loads of money and contacts or just plain be a crook, unfortunately. As for Pelosi, was she not appointed rather than elected to such a high position? (I don't know so I have to ask.)