We have primarily NHS hospitals, there are private clinics as well. The bulk of everything goes through the NHS and even if you went to the NHS, they could and do send you to a clinic for treatment at the cost to the NHS. We pay our taxes and that pays for the NHS. In addition to that, you can pay for private insurance or receive it as a perk from some employers. Just means you still get treated in an NHS hospital or a private clinic, but you bypass any queue, seen straight away and the insurance company foots the bill. But it just means Americans will have to pay more tax if you nationalised it, that is dangerous territory !!
Well, it’s proof positive govt. hospitals can do the job. Melania had here serious health issues dealt with at Walter Reed.
We have plenty of not for profit and for profit hospitals. The private sector has and will continue to privide healthcare as they always did in the past. If they can’t compete as for profits, they can change.
Bernie’s plan looks pretty complete as far as coverage goes. *****Bernie’s plan will cover the entire continuum of health care, “from inpatient to outpatient care; preventive to emergency care; primary care to specialty care, including long-term and palliative care; vision, hearing and oral health care; mental health and substance abuse services; as well as prescription medications, medical equipment, supplies, diagnostics and treatments. Patients will be able to choose a health care provider without worrying about whether that provider is in-network and will be able to get the care they need without having to read any fine print or trying to figure out how they can afford the out-of-pocket costs.”*****
The only major problem with the NHS, the top boss is the government and they can't even sort themselves out.
It would be theoretically possible for a well-managed national, government-run drug production operation to run top-grade research with a highly qualified, highly paid team of mangers. Drug companies do it and those managers could be acquired by a government operation for the right salary structure.
Yes, "almost". I recall having my first medical insurance coverage when I was young and married. My wife had coverage to. So mine was my "primary" insurance and hers was my "secondary" insurance. She did the reverse. And they was it worked then was that the primary insurance paid according to the plan minus a disallowed portion called "the employee's obligation". And the secondary coverage would pay that left over amount. The end result was that the employee was getting "free" healthcare. Now this all ties in to your post and with your "almost" wording. I found that when I got this coverage, suddenly I was seeing a doctor for every little thing because it cost me nothing. So I think in the case of any future national healthcare, there should be some small copay, like maybe $20, every time one sees a doctor. That way we all have some small deterrent to unnecessary medical care, AND it will help at least that little bit with paying for the system. But a very much needed primary requirement to make it all work is going to be finding ways to bring all the component costs of healthcare into a reasonable range. IOW, cut costs. After all, our problem with healthcare is the high cost, -not the scheme for paying for it.
You have a president with balls, we have a wet fish out of water and a wooly knitted jumper wearing monkey in opposition. With Brexit, we need testicles, not a wet fish and wooly jumper.
That is common right wing lying spin designed to undermine confidence in anything but the right wing screed. Medicare and S.S. are well managed. That doesn't mean they are well funded! They are well managed with no scandals, no measurable corruption, no excessive waste, and are reliable and subscriber-oriented instead pf profit-oriented.
Enlighten me who controls the UK's NHS budget and why would the NHS have a parliament Health Secretary pulling the NHS' strings. Bearing in mind that the government own the NHS. I'll just grab some popcorn.
No problem. I forget to check where people are from and many don't detail where they're from on their profile. Country location should be mandatory beside the username. I suppose the US has some wet fish politicians too.
This would seem to imply that you (and every other person in the world) would have an obligation to healthcare me. Is this what you're proposing?
Great. So you're not saying that one person has no obligation to provide healthcare to another person. I think we agree on that point.
Can you cite the language in (I'll help you out) Article I, section 8 that would allow the general government to enact such legislation?
Nope.. but I did put two internal medicine docs in a rural community and within months they changed the rate of deaths from heart attacks. Same with putting board certified Ob/gyns in a rural community. The results are immediate and measurable.