Health Care

[Fuzzbucket]

Are you sure it isn't coming out of insurance? Because it's definitely not covered here in Saskatchewan.

 

EDIT: I'm taking a university class right now so I can see their counselor for free just because the class is cheaper than seeing one independently :/.

OHIP is our universal insurance. Comes out of taxes and she CERTAINLY has no private ANYTHING - she hasn't any money !

[Kestra15]

But the thing is, from where I'm sitting, it doesn't look like there is much effort going into mental health here in Australia. The issue I talked about a couple of pages ago (about the government only finding ten psychologist appointments annually) has been decreased this year from last year's twelve. So from the looks of things, we're not progressing, but rather going backwards. Once a month isn't anywhere near enough funding's worth of appointments in my opinion, but to then cut it back even more? I'd like to see what they're actually doing, because it's certainly not benefiting anyone that I know.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/index.shtml

 

http://www.mhruk.org/

 

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22m...o=2012&as_vis=1

 

http://www.who.int/mental_health/en/

 

Enjoy.

 

Again, research takes time, the results take time to come out, the action plans take time to be rolled out, the effects take time to be seen.

 

Also, please remember there is only a finite amount of money in the pot - chances are you've got the decrease because the Government cannot afford to give everyone twelve for free. In that same way that there are less RN jobs going and more Auxillary roles here in the UK Nursing scene, and our pay has been frozen for over two years - we simply can't afford to have so many registered nurses at the price they cost.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Kestra15

[WereJace]

OHIP is our universal insurance. Comes out of taxes and she CERTAINLY has no private ANYTHING - she hasn't any money !

Differebt provinces offer different coverage for certain medical expenses-some cover dental, eye care, mental health, others don't.

[prairiecrow]

Here in Canada, we get nothing for mental health. Any appointments you make with a mental health practitioner come out of your own pocket unless you have insurance. We're no better than the US when it comes to mental health.

 

I've always been extremely annoyed about how our health care leaves out eye care, dental care, and mental health care.

Not true. Here in Manitoba I have regular sessions with a psychiatrist covered by Manitoba Health, AND I went through four years of weekly group therapy at no cost to me whatsoever.

 

Plus, as a diabetic I have certain forms of eye care covered by MH as well.

[Syaoransbear]

I guess it's just saskatchewan then. I wasn't aware health care coverage was so different across the country.

[Fuzzbucket]

I guess it's just saskatchewan then. I wasn't aware health care coverage was so different across the country.

Oh yes. Let someone in NB tell you about physio !!!

[CrossingStar]

Oh yes. Let someone in NB tell you about physio !!!

Pardon? I don't know what that is myself. Care to explain?

[~Kat~]

Walmart finds Loop Hole in Obamacare

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/01/w...26pLid%3D240589

 

 

[Fuzzbucket]

Pardon? I don't know what that is myself. Care to explain?

Physiotherapy. Not covered. You pay for it yourself in NB - but not in ON.

 

If WALMART is trying to find loopholes, Obama has CERTAINLY got something right Walmart are famous for their appalling employment policies, and many people are boycotting them.

 

Edited for weird stuff with quote codes

Edited December 3, 2012 by fuzzbucket

[TikindiDragon]

Taking a sligthly different tack on the Walmart thing - *this* is why Unions are a *good* thing. Any company in the UK trying to do something like that (let alone trying to introduce the insane scheduling system Walmart uses) would face serious opposition from the Unions. And just as well, too. Unions protect workers, nuff said.

 

(Just as a note ASDA in the UK is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wal-Mart... and has several times featured in lists of 'best companies to work for' over here. Just shows to go you that, if the Wal-Mart execs were paying attention, they realise that people they have easy acess to can show them how to run a company that makes a profit *and* that staff are happy to work for. Saying nothing about the ethics, mind.)

[CrossingStar]

Physiotherapy. Not covered. You pay for it yourself in NB - but not in ON.

 

If WALMART is trying to find loopholes, Obama has CERTAINLY got something right Walmart are famous for their appalling employment policies, and many people are boycotting them.

I didn't know that Physiotherapy wasn't covered in NB

 

Walmart...ugh. I buy from them anyway, because they're really the only place where you can get good prices for groceries in the area Maybe I should do Whole Foods or something instead.

[StormWizard212]

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/index.shtml

 

http://www.mhruk.org/

 

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22m...o=2012&as_vis=1

 

http://www.who.int/mental_health/en/

 

Enjoy.

 

Again, research takes time, the results take time to come out, the action plans take time to be rolled out, the effects take time to be seen.

 

Also, please remember there is only a finite amount of money in the pot - chances are you've got the decrease because the Government cannot afford to give everyone twelve for free. In that same way that there are less RN jobs going and more Auxillary roles here in the UK Nursing scene, and our pay has been frozen for over two years - we simply can't afford to have so many registered nurses at the price they cost.

I am aware that there is research going into mental health, just like there's research going into just about every other topic under the sun. And as great as further research is, we still need help here at a personal level with individuals. There is little point learning more and more about ways to help people deal with or even overcome their illnesses if they don't have the means to do so.

 

Yes, there is less money in the economy. I don't think anyone is trying to deny that. But there is still a massive issue here in this country with the government's prioritizing of mental health. It falls by the wayside compared to other issues that, important as they are too, aren't life or death situations, to put it frankly. Mental health, in many cases, is.

 

For example, the Australian government recently funded the building of one new school hall in every public school in the country. And as lovely as that is that they're trying to help the children of this nation out, in many cases, it was a useless investment. Without getting too sidetracked here, I'll give a brief example of my own primary school that got a new hall from this funding. The majority of the school's natural plant-life was removed, students' learning was disrupted because they didn't have access to half of their old classrooms anymore due to the renovations, the law does not allow these buildings to be used for classrooms and due to the space it takes up, "temporary classrooms" have been on the oval (one of the last areas with real grass left) for almost 3 years now, and the school has not benefited in a single way from this awful monstrosity that they've built in the middle of the playground. I'm sure in some cases it was very useful, but there are also a lot of other cases where it has been a grand waste of money that has only inconvenienced people.

 

The issue that I'm concerned with here has not come about because there isn't enough money for the government to put into mental health, it's because the government is not prioritizing mental health at all and is making these fickle investments that, on the surface, might sound like a lovely idea, but in practice, do very little to actually help anyone.

 

Another example. In the past 12 months, the tarmac in the street outside my house has been replaced four times. There is never a problem with it to begin with, but apparently people want the "new asphalt" look. The local government in my area spent my taxes building intricate street signs for the median strip because apparently the existing street signs on the corners weren't obnoxious enough.

 

The trend I've noticed over the past few years: funding being taken out of extremely important factors of society like mental health and invested into things that don't benefit anyone at all.

[TikindiDragon]

Another example. In the past 12 months, the tarmac in the street outside my house has been replaced four times. There is never a problem with it to begin with, but apparently people want the "new asphalt" look. The local government in my area spent my taxes building intricate street signs for the median strip because apparently the existing street signs on the corners weren't obnoxious enough.

I almost wish they'd do that here. Road resurfacing is the responsibility of the local councils (unlike NHS funding) and the quality can vary dramaticly depending on your local authority. They don't resurface very often here, it always looks like a half-arsed job when they do it (seriously, they let us drive on what's effectively gravel for a couple of weeks to pack it down, then come pain white lines on it), and on one noteable local road the only thing the resurfacing seems to have done is make the potholes bigger.

[CrossingStar]

and on one noteable local road the only thing the resurfacing seems to have done is make the potholes bigger.

Same here in my city. At random intervals the government rips up the pavement on a major road or two and makes them look even worse. It's irritating. Government f*ck-ups...sorry if I'm being too harsh, but that's what it feels like for me

[Totts]

It seems really silly! I had my braces covered by the NHS, why doesn't the US have a similar system? it seems stupid to shell out $5000 for braces! Give me your thoughts on healthcare in the USA below!

[Flamingo]

I'll be glad to tell you. It really sucks. If you don't have a job that covers your health care, then you better hope you don't get sick because if you do and have to go to the doctor, be prepared to have a bill as long as your arm that you'll spend months if not years paying off.

 

Heck, sometimes even the health insurance you do have is awful. My dad had a heart attack and needed heart surgery in May of last year, and his insurance barely paid for a fraction of it. They will be paying off that bill for a few more years.

 

Forgot to include why: Because the leaders of this country are money-obsessed toads who really don't care about the welfare of their people. Medicine is one of the largest money-generators there is.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Flamingo

[Totts]

0.0 What?! No NHS in America?!

[Kyrieath]

Yes, you have to pay for health care in the US under many circumstances, given it is a largely privatized practice, not a government run one.

 

The thing to keep in mind for why we do not have a national healthcare system, however, is our population versus our available budget. Also to consider are the available professionals who wouldn't necessarily willingly participate in such a system that takes away their right to choose who they deem as most needing their care.

 

Many Americans can't afford healthcare. And keep that in mind as I say this: our hospitals are swamped as it is. There's too many patients, not enough facilities and staff, and people who can afford such care may have to wait far longer than is often advisable for their condition to even get a chance to see their doctor let alone receive the necessary care, depending on the area they live in.

 

This has been the main reason behind refusing to accept a national healthcare system that completely puts the bill in the government's hands. At present, we'd have to completely restructure our national budget to not only supply these hospitals with the necessary equipment but also for training up the staff that would actually run the hospitals.

 

We would also be violating one of our Constitution's purposes in putting such a thing in government hands, when that also means that patients would be subject to government approval or disapproval, not the doctor's.

 

Not saying I approve of it, but before people go declaring it 'silly'- figuring out the basis and whys of it is a pretty good idea.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Kyrieath

[Obscure_Trash]

~Merged~

[lightbird]

Not saying I approve of it, but before people go declaring it 'silly'- figuring out the basis and whys of it is a pretty good idea.

Knowing the "whys" doesn't make the idea that healthcare is a "privilege" (pointing out to the "professionals should choose whom they deem as most needing their care) and not a right any less disgusting than it is.

 

USA's lack of universal healthcare is pretty much the biggest reason why I wouldn't consider living there and would, heh, be even nervous to travel to it, lest something happen to me. And this is coming from someone who lives in Eastern Europe.

 

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, guys, but isn't it that USA's federal healthcare expenses per capita are the highest in the developed world?

Edited September 24, 2013 by lightbird

[Totts]

Healthcare is a service, not a business, Go NHS!

[TikindiDragon]

0.0 What?! No NHS in America?!

Ah, no. There is no form of Nationalised Healthcare at all in the US. You (or your insurance) have to pay for everything - pay quite steeply too, as prices are always inflated the moment insurance companies get involved. The US is almost entirely alone in the western world in not providing some form of Universal Health Care.

 

And, yeah, anyone outsode the States has a massive amount of trouble understanding why they insist on the system they use.

 

@Kyrieath - see, there's a big problem with most of your basis and whys.

 

1) According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States spent more on health care per capita ($8,608), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (17.9%), than any other nation in 2011. (Quote from Wiki) Which means that, despite not having national health care, the US is still spending more tax money on it. Spending in the UK (as a percentage of total National income) is closer to 8%.

 

2) Some years ago a few of us actually got our finances out and compared personal spending on healthcare - the amount of tax I pay that goes towards the NHS (My National Insurance payments, which also go towards my State Penison) was also *less* than the money spent by individual people from the US on their insurance. I do not have to pay an excess either, whereas almost everyone with private insurance would still have to pay some money.

 

So the NHS in the UK... costs the government less, costs individuals less, and treats everyone on a 'need' basis, rather than an 'ability to pay' basis.

 

Added to which - if you think the NHS takes treatment decisions out of the hands of Doctors and puts it into the hands of the government you are wrong. It doesn't. The difference is that Doctors here can make the call that says a person needs treatment, and they don't have to worry about whether or not the insurance will pay for it first.

 

Edit to add: Some further about the poor state of healthcare in the US

 

The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries, and notes U.S. care costs the most. In a 2013 Bloomberg ranking of nations with the most efficient health care systems, the United States ranks 46th among the 48 countries included in the study

Edited September 24, 2013 by TikindiDragon

[Kyrieath]

Knowing the "whys" doesn't make the idea that healthcare is a "privilege" (pointing out to the "professionals should choose whom they deem as most needing their care) and not a right any less disgusting than it is.

 

USA's lack of universal healthcare is pretty much the biggest reason why I wouldn't consider living there and would, heh, be even nervous to travel to it, lest something happen to me. And this is coming from someone who lives in Eastern Europe.

 

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, guys, but isn't it that USA's federal healthcare expenses per capita are the highest in the developed world?

You're misinterpreting my comment about 'deeming who they need to see the most'. A government official is rarely a trained doctor- they wouldn't know who needs care more than the next in line unless one of them's on a death bed. A doctor would be far more likely to know. That is what I mean by 'deeming' who needs their care most over letting a government official tell them who they have to treat.

 

As to the rest, to each their own. I know the healthcare system well enough to know it's not the great evil some people view it as- particularly people from other countries- but it certainly has its flaws. There are also a surprising number of people who do not know about filing indigent and thus land themselves in holes they didn't necessarily have to.

 

To the government spending, yep, we're pretty high up there- and those funds go to paying for healthcare for governmental employees from politicians to soldiers as well as covering indigent claims, not providing healthcare. Bit of a difference. Keep in mind the numbers they're providing for before doing any 'ah hah!' finger pointing about why you think we could currently fund training, building and maintaining governmental hospitals and such for the general public, however.

 

Personally I'd love a national healthcare, but I know why it's not liable to happen any time soon, for reasons both social and budget driven. Our current system isn't quite as broken as some think, however, even though it's admittedly far from perfect.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Kyrieath

[TikindiDragon]

You're misinterpreting my comment about 'deeming who they need to see the most'. A government official is rarely a trained doctor- they wouldn't know who needs care more than the next in line unless one of them's on a death bed. A doctor would be far more likely to know. That is what I mean by 'deeming' who needs their care most over letting a government official tell them who they have to treat.

 

As to the rest, to each their own. I know the healthcare system well enough to know it's not the great evil some people view it as- particularly people from other countries- but it certainly has its flaws. There are also a surprising number of people who do not know about filing indigent and thus land themselves in holes they didn't necessarily have to.

 

To the government spending, yep, we're pretty high up there- and those funds go to paying for healthcare for governmental employees from politicians to soldiers as well as covering indigent claims, not providing healthcare. Bit of a difference. Keep in mind the numbers they're providing for before doing any 'ah hah!' finger pointing about why you think we could currently fund training, building and maintaining governmental hospitals and such for the general public, however.

 

Personally I'd love a national healthcare, but I know why it's not liable to happen any time soon, for reasons both social and budget driven. Our current system isn't quite as broken as some think, however, even though it's admittedly far from perfect.

That's just it - government officials have no say in specific NHS care. There's no government official saying 'treat this person, not that person'. All the government does is set the budget, and the *Doctors* decide which are the most urgent cases. In the UK the government doesn't decide who to treat, the doctors do - in the US the doctors have to decide based on who can pay for it. In the UK the person with the more acute problem would get priority treatment, in the US they'd only get treated if they could prove they had insurance cover.

 

Your current system is not only the most expensive, but also provides some of the worst care in the western world. There's a really, really good reason it's looked down upon by *everyone* outside the US.

 

And, as it happens, I've enough folks in the US (including an Aunt that's a Nurse, an Uncle that's an Army Dentist, and a cousin that's a radiographer) to know about the US healthcare system in slightly more depth than you think. I've spent a lot of tiem in the US. Compared to Europe? Your system sucks. Massively.

 

The US treats on ability to pay, not on need. Doesn't matter if you've got a nasty cancer, if you don't qualify for Medicaid and your insurance won't cover it (or you don't have insurance) you're screwed. Ever heard of medical bankruptcy? Not at all uncommon in the States, practically unheard of this side of the pond.

 

Health insurance companies are making billions of dollars of profit in the US - and one of the reasons that your government spending is so high is beacuae the government is paying for health insurace (and associated premiums) rather than directly paying hospitals for the treatment. I've also seen it happen (time and time again) that when something is being charged to insurance the cost of it is put up. So the cost to an insurance company is much higher than it would be if charged to the individual. Step one in reducing your government spend would be to eliminate the middle man - getting rid of the insurance companies and having the government pay hospitals directly. Another big problem is that drug companies are allowed to market directly to consumers, and drugs are not bought on massive wholesale levels. The NHS can negotiate lower prices because they're buying such large quantities of various drugs - individual hospitals don't have that kind of power. And because drug companies in the US are paying for expensive advertising they need to charge more to get their money back.

 

It's not rocket science, and it doesn't take a genius to see how one thing effects another. But to solve it *does* effectively require re-starting the system from scratch. Trying to use public money to pay for the system as it currently works is only going to be expensive, and inefficient. The benefits though, well...

 

Imagine how much less it would cost a company if it didn't have to pay health insurance for all it's employees. Profits would rise (which means the taxes they paid would also rise, but not by as much as costs had gone down). It would be possible to pay better wages. The private sector (with the obvious exception of the health insurance companies themselves) would benefit.

 

Through paying doctors & hospitals directly, rather than through a middle man, government costs go down. Which means either a) taxes could be lowers, or the money saved could be spent on improving the system and building more hospitals.

 

Through large collective bargaining power drugs could be bought cheaper, which would also bring costs down. Banning direct advertising would also lessen costs to drug companies, who could then absorb the lower price being paid for their product (in addition to no longer having to pay health insurance for their own employees).

 

No one would have to go without medical care because they couldn't afford it. Hospitals would not lose massive amounts of money in ERs because they'd be being paid directly by the government, and not having to try and recoup money from insurance companies for emergency care they've already provided. General health in the US would be better (and emergency care required less frequently) because people would be able to go to a Doctor when they first showed signs of sickness, rather than waiting until they were so sick they had no other option.

[Kyrieath]

Hold off on the sermons, folks. I'm not saying the system doesn't have its flaws and they're bad ones. I've said it does several times now, and even that I dislike it. So I'll keep it blunt since people seem to think my attempts to explain its existence, how to work with it and why national healthcare is not liable to happen are attempts to defend it.

 

No, I do not like our system. There, stated again. I'd love a national healthcare system. There, stated again.

 

It just isn't going to happen.

 

You're preaching to the choir, friends- this particular choir member is just aware of why it's not liable to happen here unless the Constitution is revoked/completely rewritten; an amendment isn't going to cover that level of change to a certain founding principle. Also, our politicians will need change out their Pampers for real underwear and remember how to work together in regards to the budget at very least over bawling and wetting themselves when they don't get their way to get the funding for that kind of conversion.

 

Probably should have stayed out of this discussion- no one ever wants to hear the basis of the problem, just tout why theirs is better.