|
Post by Dabbit on Sept 25, 2007 2:25:36 GMT -5
I am fascinated by the American way of life probably because of the majority of films I watch are made there along with the TV series etc. So on the health care front can someone tell me if my thoughts are correct.
You get ill you make an appointment to see you doctor, you then fill in a claim form and send it to your insurance company who then pay your doctor? And similarly if you need hospital treatment or tests it's done in the same way? Or am I totally in err
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Sept 25, 2007 11:51:03 GMT -5
In general, that's correct, Dabbit, though there are variations on the theme. In some cases, you must make what is called a 'copayment', or the portion the insurance company will not cover. Insurance is usually paid for through premiums paid for by the individual and his/her employer in combination, though sometimes (in very few cases these days) the employer might pay the whole premium. Insurance premiums can be quite high, so the employer's portion is important. If one cannot afford insurance the individual states or the federal government have some programs which help, though the quality of care might not be as good as that privately paid for. Sometimes the insurance programs, depending on the type, limit care to a prescribed list of doctors and hospitals, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Dabbit on Sept 25, 2007 12:26:20 GMT -5
SO do the insurance compnaies own the hospitals Mark?
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Sept 25, 2007 13:03:39 GMT -5
I don't think so. I think most are either privately owned or run by some government, such as a City or State. Even the federal government has hospitals, but usually for the active or retired military. A lot of them are owned by consortiums of doctors.
|
|
|
Post by Dabbit on Sept 26, 2007 11:35:04 GMT -5
Oh right! I had heard about them not helping in accident and emergencies until they are sure you have insurance.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Sept 26, 2007 13:03:08 GMT -5
I don't think that's really true in 'real' emergencies, say following an automobile accident when victims may not even be conscious, but a 'walk-in' with a toothache or something would surely be questioned, unless they are at one of the 'charity' hospitals.
|
|
|
Post by Maria on Sept 26, 2007 18:59:17 GMT -5
Some folks lose everything because of a long term illness--even with insurance. And one's insurance company may not cover an experimental procedure. Some companies cover fertility procedures for women and other companies don't. Although most insurance companies cover the little blue pill for men. Interesting huh? If you have a preexisting problem, forget about changing insurance companies. In fact you can be dropped by your insurance company.
Oh yes, Mark forgot to mention the religious hospitals. So in general, hospitals are nonprofit, for profit, religious ones, teaching hospitals affiliated with a university and sometimes run by the university, usually the state hospitals are for the very poorest of the poor and people don't want to go there.
One of my sister's insurance company (Kaiser) owns several hospitals and all their clients go to those. Interestingly enough, the one my sister goes to is also a teaching and research hospital as well. It actually has a very good reputation--even here on the opposite coast of the US.
But mostly people go to private doctors, or group practices before they end up at hospitals.
It is all rather unfair and boils down to: the more money you have the better service you get.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Sept 27, 2007 13:21:12 GMT -5
Still, as unfair as it seems, the systems seems to work better than systems that are governmentally ( accent on the mentally) run.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Sept 27, 2007 13:36:07 GMT -5
There's some truth in what Jake says. Except in rare cases I'd wager, if physicians became limited as to their income, say, by the government, then the better ones would stay in private practice, or else perhaps stay out of medicine altogether and become insurance salesmen or something. The best run businesses of any sort seem to be those that are run 'for profit', as unfair as that may seem. There are no easy answers for all the tough questions, and life can indeed seem unfair at times - but, that's life.
|
|
|
Post by Maria on Oct 1, 2007 12:14:57 GMT -5
I agree Mark. Life and systems seem to be unfair at times.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Oct 17, 2007 20:04:50 GMT -5
The best we can do is to put on a smile and put our best foot forward and keep on keeping on.
|
|
|
Post by Dabbit on Oct 19, 2007 3:11:07 GMT -5
Well I am pleased to say that the EU has decided that Britain can keep it's imperial weight system. So no longer will we be forced to ask for 100gram of sweets instead we can ask for a quarter
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Oct 20, 2007 10:56:23 GMT -5
That's good, Dabbit. I have trouble still with the metric system, I have to do mental gymnastics in my head, doing conversion calculations so I have a better 'feel' for the amount or distance I'm dealing with.
|
|
|
Post by randulo on Nov 25, 2007 11:55:42 GMT -5
Hi,
I'm a new member here and an American expatriate. As it happens, I saw this thread. One reason I would not retire in the USA is that of the lack of health care. Where I live now, I have the benefit of excellent national health coverage. People in the US, particularly the Republican party for some reason, keep trying to say that Nat'l Health is a bad idea and point to Canada, the UK and France as examples. There's only one problem with this argument: it's balooney!
It makes a huge difference to know that you won't be ruined if diagnosed with a disease requiring hospitalization or long term treatment. A difference that I don't want to experience if I go back to retire.
Further, children, all children deserve good health care. They aren't guilty of laziness or anything else, they need a chance to keep healthy.
Oh well, so much for the soap box, I suppose it's a lost cause.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Nov 25, 2007 12:12:06 GMT -5
Hopefully not a totally lost cause, Randulo, although I do agree with you about universal coverage. Having been an expatriate for most of my adult life (I'm retired now from the Foreign Service) I can vouch for the fact that universal coverage can work.
I have lived in countries where it worked better than in others, but it can and does work - all systems can use improvement, but denial of health care because of one's inability to pay is unconscionable - particularly for children who have no say in the matter and who are at the mercy of their elders.
|
|
|
Post by randulo on Nov 26, 2007 4:48:37 GMT -5
I have a hard time understanding why universal health care of some kind is an issue. The only possible answer is the usual scapegoat, big business, aka the drug companies and HMO. Because, if UHC was available, would it really kill any individual that someone, even someone lazy, got treatment for a disease, emergency or even an illness that in fact they may transmit all over the place? I also wish that eyeglasses were free for all children since bad vision is a terrible obstacle to reading and learning. If that sounds to socialistic to others, so be it. We all have a stake in children, give them the best possible chance for a future, always.
I guess the way I choose to vote, with my feet, is the only way you can really be sure to get what you want in life. I work hard, pay taxes and it doesn't bother me that poor people have the same care as I do.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Nov 26, 2007 12:48:46 GMT -5
I tend to agree, for the most part, Randulo. No one who is truly needy should be denied adequate health care, IMHO, particularly children, because of their inability to pay.
|
|
|
Post by Dabbit on Nov 27, 2007 6:48:45 GMT -5
In a perfect world of course such a thing would happen! Each country having the same standards and treating people as and when they need it despite their ability to pay.
|
|
|
Post by randulo on Nov 27, 2007 7:44:58 GMT -5
In a perfect world of course such a thing would happen! Each country having the same standards and treating people as and when they need it despite their ability to pay. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that in an even "somewhere in the ballpark near perfect world", people would not need to be convinced and forced by laws to care about others' health. So there is a little problem here in that many people care only for "#1". Of course I put my own family and friends forst, but I find room to care about others too.
|
|
|
Post by Dabbit on Nov 27, 2007 9:26:59 GMT -5
Number 1 is always priority with many people and I think if all is well with family and friends then number one comes second (to me anyway)
|
|