14 replies to this topic

[truefusion]

After watching the movie SiCKO by Michael Moore and already knowing just how corrupt the American government is, i wondered if such a documentary was as accurate as it implied. I mean, i've seen just how far the media can push something without much (if any) justifications for their statements where it makes it hard to decide whether or not something is true. So i figured here at the Trap17 forums where we have people from literally all over the world, benefiting from different kinds of health care and others probably not benefiting from any, would be the perfect place to ask if things are going well for them in their country concerning universal or national health care, without expecting anyone for any reason (or at least reasons not even worth it) to push or lie about.

Before i decided to start a topic about this, though, i looked into this forum and found a topic about Canada's taxes concerning health care. The topic itself was practically along the lines of the movie SiCKO. Likewise was the Frontline series located in post #7 of that topic. So that led me to believe that a lot of the news media was spoon fed (again). In either case, i was in amazement from both documentaries: from SiCKO before i did further research, and from Frontline after doing further research. During my research i realized that it is truly as bad as the media says it is, as health care was one of the topics touched on in the presidential debates.

Although this topic is mostly on health care, i couldn't help but be just as shocked and amazed to hear that France pays for college education (from taxes, of course); they have a national education service. They even have house doctor services, where you call up the doctor and they actually go to your house without you having to go anywhere. That's really how it should be, for when a person is sick, they shouldn't have to get up and leave to go to the hospital. And, sadly, here in the States we actually have to pay for the ambulance ride—and before this research, i thought the ambulance ride was free. This is a bit embarrassing for the States. In the SiCKO movie, i saw Cuba two ranks below the United States (the States taking 37th place, if i remember correctly), placing Cuba in 39th place; yet, near the end of the movie, Cuba was looking better than the States.

I have heard the media here in the States have attempted to debunk national health care in the past, talking about other countries, and know some people who believe a national health care system shouldn't be provided by the government. But watching these documentaries, i feel we could learn much from other countries. So, i am interested in the health care services the people here in Trap17 are prescribed by their country. How's your country's health care system?

[Baniboy]

Well I'm from Finland in case you didn't know and I knew that Finland was one of the leading countries in health care, and when I saw this topic i decided to do some research. It seems that Finland really is on the top when it is to talk about health care with other nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark but not Iceland even tho it's a part of the nordic). I read some material on finnish and foreign websites and on some European Union sites. It's very funny how you have to pay for a ambulance ride in states.

Some medical facts about Finland:

• You get FREE mental, dental and the usual hospital care until you turn 16.
  
• Even tho Finland has one of the lowest death rates when it comes to diseases it's a world leader in suicides (funny ha? you've got all the system to prevent people from dying and then... they want to die themself!) I personally think that it's because you don't feel the damn sun on your skin for 4 months, and then some people live in the far north when it's like 6 months or so and you've got average temperature of the year of -10 celcius. Yep, it's damn depressing!
  
• Finland has shortage on medical workers, not that they don't have enough educated people but the students just move to other countries to work because they get better paid there since Finland's doctor license is valid all over the world (depends on the university they studied in)

What I'm gonna quote now is from a american website (I think)
The site: http://countrystudie.../finland/72.htm

Quote

By the second half of the 1980s, Finns enjoyed a standard of health fully comparable to that of other highly developed countries. If health standards did not match those of Finland's Nordic neighbors in all areas, it was because Sweden, Denmark, and Norway were the world's leaders in health care. Finland had made remarkable progress, however, and was rapidly catching up. In one major area, the prevention of infant mortality, Finland led the world in the mid-1980s: it had the world's lowest infant mortality rate.

Quote

A basic aim of the 1972 law was to give all Finns equal access to health care, regardless of their income or where they lived. Because most services of health centers were free, subsidies from the national government were required to augment the financial resources of municipalities. The subsidies varied according to the wealth of the municipality and ranged roughly from 30 to 65 percent of costs. By the mid-1980s, about 40 percent of the money spent on health went for primary care, compared with 10 percent in 1972.

In Finland, everyone (still, after 1972) enjoys an equal health care even if they are poor or jobless. It's not like if you don't have money then you'll die because you can't buy the medicine. You can get money from the government if you're poor or jobless (the social agency processes all the health and other payments to people because they are poor.

And one problem, finns drink a lot in parties at weekends, "a lot" doesn't even describe enough
So the government is working on this one, and smoking and other things that stupid people do:

Quote

National efforts to improve living habits have included campaigns against smoking, restraints on the consumption of alcohol, and better health education in schools. One program that has been widely studied by international health officials was one implemented in the province of Pohjois-Karjala that aimed at reforming dietary habits in a region particularly hard hit by coronary illnesses. Finland was also a participant in the World Health Organization's program Health for All by the Year 2000 and was its European reporting nation.

And for the education, it's free until you're 16 yrs old. After that you have to choose if you want to continue as student or go to work, mosty of the people here continue the studies until they have to choose if they want to go to university or go to work.

You can get supported by the government if you decide to continue school after you're 16 since after that you'll have to pay for all your books and other school equipment (Oh I didn't mention that before, you get everything at school for free, even lunch).
But after you get a job you'll have to pay back to the government the support you got earlier.

That's all I know about Finland in health care and education.

[rvalkass]

I'm in the UK, so we have the somewhat well-known NHS. The service is not, as many people seem to believe, free for everyone. It is, however, free at the time of treatment (ie. you don't have to write a cheque from your hospital bed) for things except dentistry, eyecare and prescriptions (medication).

It is paid for by all tax payers (so is free to the unemployed and under-16s) directly from their wages, or from their tax bill. Currently as a nation we spend around £92 billion on it each and every year. Those who don't live in the UK (tourists, foreign workers, etc.) are still entitled to accident and emergency care free of charge (which often surprises people who visit the UK and have an accident!).

The advantages are that everyone gets the healthcare they need, regardless of their wealth, and it has saved millions of lives. It is also fairer than a system of medical insurance. As it is paid for from a percentage of each person's wages, those who can afford to pay more do so. Those who can't afford much do not have much taken from them to fund it.

The disadvantages are that people take considerable advantage of the system, requesting treatment for things that really don't require it simply because it's free. It is also drastically underfunded, partly due to people not paying tax, or tax dodging, but also because of poor management and budgeting on the part of the NHS.

[truefusion]

baniboy, on Feb 21 2009, 07:26 AM, said:

It's very funny how you have to pay for a ambulance ride in states.

Heh, yes, quite sad. We have public libraries, police, firefighters, et cetera, but have to pay for the ambulance ride. I'm not sure if the rate is fixed or not, but if i remember correctly, one of the receipts i saw charged over $20 for the ride.

baniboy, on Feb 21 2009, 07:26 AM, said:

You get FREE mental, dental and the usual hospital care until you turn 16.

And for the education, it's free until you're 16 yrs old. After that you have to choose if you want to continue as student or go to work, mosty of the people here continue the studies until they have to choose if they want to go to university or go to work.

You can get supported by the government if you decide to continue school after you're 16 since after that you'll have to pay for all your books and other school equipment (Oh I didn't mention that before, you get everything at school for free, even lunch).

16, eh? I'ma assume 16 is the legal age for work. I know here in the States we have Financial Aid for education after high school, but not everyone is eligible. We also have ways of being sponsored, but these other ways can't be obtained by everyone. It's interesting to see that you guys get free lunch also. But is lunch limited to the campus or can you basically go anywhere to eat? I would assume the former, but the latter is also possible. And how about breakfast, which is always said that it is the best out of all meals? Is breakfast free too?

baniboy, on Feb 21 2009, 07:26 AM, said:

Even tho Finland has one of the lowest death rates when it comes to diseases it's a world leader in suicides (funny ha? you've got all the system to prevent people from dying and then... they want to die themself!) I personally think that it's because you don't feel the damn sun on your skin for 4 months, and then some people live in the far north when it's like 6 months or so and you've got average temperature of the year of -10 celcius. Yep, it's damn depressing!

I heard with proper eating and exercise you can reduce the effects of depression, sometimes clearing it away entirely. I had known that eating certain fast foods (if not all) can get you depressed due to all the chemicals in it. That is, if you stop eating it after having it for quite a while, you start feeling the side effects, one of which is depression. This has been known for a while by many who study nutrition, but you can see it for yourself if you see the movie Super Size Me.

baniboy, on Feb 21 2009, 07:26 AM, said:

Finland has shortage on medical workers, not that they don't have enough educated people but the students just move to other countries to work because they get better paid there since Finland's doctor license is valid all over the world (depends on the university they studied in)

Yeah, that was one of the side effects of having a national health system that i observed: competition. But the competition talked about was from other hospitals trying to get as many patients as possible, and not only increase in patients, but also increase in healthy patients! I personally am getting a bit tired of the system here in the States, as doctors aren't getting paid, or paid more, for healthy patients—to get them to stop smoking, eat right, et cetera—but they're getting paid more to prescribe drugs to patients. And a refill hits the wallet hard—imagine for those who are on multiple pills. SSI helps reduce the damage, but people don't receive SSI because they have (good-paying) jobs, it's normally because they're jobless. I've been attempting to figure out ways to overcome the competition trouble without "Big Pharma" having much if anything to do with an increase in profits, but there are still some things to work out.

baniboy, on Feb 21 2009, 07:26 AM, said:

In Finland, everyone (still, after 1972) enjoys an equal health care even if they are poor or jobless. It's not like if you don't have money then you'll die because you can't buy the medicine. You can get money from the government if you're poor or jobless (the social agency processes all the health and other payments to people because they are poor.

But after you get a job you'll have to pay back to the government the support you got earlier.

How do they pay it all back? Or do you mean they just pay taxes, not necessarily pay back what they used?

rvalkass, on Feb 21 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

I'm in the UK, so we have the somewhat well-known NHS. The service is not, as many people seem to believe, free for everyone. It is, however, free at the time of treatment (ie. you don't have to write a cheque from your hospital bed) for things except dentistry, eyecare and prescriptions (medication).

The disadvantages are that people take considerable advantage of the system, requesting treatment for things that really don't require it simply because it's free. It is also drastically underfunded, partly due to people not paying tax, or tax dodging, but also because of poor management and budgeting on the part of the NHS.

I heard there were exceptions, but i didn't think it would be for those things. The exceptions i would implement or would have assumed would be things that are desired or desirable. That is, you wouldn't be allowed to pay for something that "fixes" a "problem" that relates to self esteem or ego, like enlarging body parts, reducing wrinkles, et cetera; dental care i would allow, for what if you fall and break your teeth, et cetera? Dental problems is not only a hygiene problem but also a health problem. If i were to make a national health care system i would make it illegal for the national health system to cover for things that help the ego, et cetera. The only thing it would cover is actual health problems and injuries. This would, i believe, help prevent false spending and would allow earnings outside of the system. I'm also contemplating whether or not patients who are apathetic towards their health should still have their health coverage continued.

rvalkass, on Feb 21 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

(which often surprises people who visit the UK and have an accident!).

Heh, i don't think one would require to live in the UK and have an accident in order to be surprised.

rvalkass, on Feb 21 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

As it is paid for from a percentage of each person's wages, those who can afford to pay more do so. Those who can't afford much do not have much taken from them to fund it.

Right, i was thinking about that too. But would you happen to know the ranges of the classes? That is, the lower class, the middle class, et cetera, and what constitutes one who can't afford to have much taken away from them? Like, other than jobless, if one makes from £100,000 year or lower, they get charged a certain percentage, those above to another range get charged higher, et cetera? I'm wondering how the system is divided concerning the wages.

[TheDisturbedOne]

I live in the United States, and I have mixed feelings about health care. I think a nationalized health care isn't a bad idea, but too many people would take advantage of it. People would go to the hospital for little things, and the government would be stuck with the high hospital bill. Other people would have to get government incentives (ie tax break) to take their kids to get a yearly checkup. If we get universal health care, it better work.

[rvalkass]

truefusion, on Feb 21 2009, 10:54 PM, said:

I heard there were exceptions, but i didn't think it would be for those things. The exceptions i would implement or would have assumed would be things that are desired or desirable. That is, you wouldn't be allowed to pay for something that "fixes" a "problem" that relates to self esteem or ego, like enlarging body parts, reducing wrinkles, et cetera;

The NHS doesn't cover any form of cosmetic surgery or ego-boosting stuff, as it is not considered an essential health service The exception is for things like artificial limbs, or reconstructive surgery after an accident or something, although in these cases the surgery is required, rather than ego-boosting.

truefusion, on Feb 21 2009, 10:54 PM, said:

dental care i would allow, for what if you fall and break your teeth, et cetera? Dental problems is not only a hygiene problem but also a health problem.

I agree. I believe, at the moment, dental care is provided "at cost" (ie. no profit is made by the NHS) but the basics should be free. I think the problem is that so much dental work can be classed as cosmetic and non-essential that making some of it free would leave expensive treatments open to abuse as people tried to claim them as free.

truefusion, on Feb 21 2009, 10:54 PM, said:

If i were to make a national health care system i would make it illegal for the national health system to cover for things that help the ego, et cetera. The only thing it would cover is actual health problems and injuries. This would, i believe, help prevent false spending and would allow earnings outside of the system.

The problem is more that money is spent on managers and administrative staff, rather than being spent on unnecessary treatments.

truefusion, on Feb 21 2009, 10:54 PM, said:

I'm also contemplating whether or not patients who are apathetic towards their health should still have their health coverage continued.

This is something that has been debated in the UK before. Providing expensive treatments for smokers, for example, to cure cancer was considered for scrapping - if they are causing their health problems, why should tax payers foot the bill? Now the NHS focusses more on getting people to quit, rather than solving the problems smoking causes.

truefusion, on Feb 21 2009, 10:54 PM, said:

Heh, i don't think one would require to live in the UK and have an accident in order to be surprised.

Foreign tourists always seem to be surprised that we have 'free' emergency healthcare. I guess it's a welcome surprise if you ever find yourself in that situation.

truefusion, on Feb 21 2009, 10:54 PM, said:

Right, i was thinking about that too. But would you happen to know the ranges of the classes? That is, the lower class, the middle class, et cetera, and what constitutes one who can't afford to have much taken away from them? Like, other than jobless, if one makes from £100,000 year or lower, they get charged a certain percentage, those above to another range get charged higher, et cetera? I'm wondering how the system is divided concerning the wages.

There is no direct way to tell, and it's slightly complicated. Basically, a percentage of your earnings is taken to pay for National Insurance, and whatever you have to pay is matched by your employer. This covers the NHS, the state pension, jobseeker's allowances, etc, etc. If you earn up to £95 per week, you do not have to pay National Insurance. From £95 to £844 per week you pay 11% of your earnings. Anything you earn over £844 per week, you pay 1% of. Your employer puts in a further 12.8% of whatever you earn over £95. Not all of that goes on the NHS, but it takes a large proportion of it.

[Digitalidad]

Oh, folks! You complain about your health care systems when they are so much better than the ones here in Mexico. I think your system is not comparable to the social security scheme held by the government here.

There are 2 health institutions here, one for people who work for private companies and another one for people who work for the government. Regarding the first, it receives money from the government, the employer and the employee (how much you pay depends on your income, but it's not very cheap indeed). Service is terrible. When you feel sick and go to get medical attention you must be lucky because if it's an emergency, clinics and hospitals are most of the time too crowded with patients -needless to say many ppl have died waiting for attention.

If you just go to see your doctor, now you have to make an appointment. Sometimes they'll give you a date for a month later or more, which is ridiculous because you go there because you feel bad at that moment! If you are sent to see an specialist you sometimes have to wait for 2 or 3 months -again, many have died waiting for attention.

The drugs they prescribe are nearly always the same: aspirins and antibiotics. The doctors are told to do so because it's cheaper. When you need a special drug, sometimes they don't have it because it's out of stock -for months- and poor people have to manage to get money to buy them at a regular drugstore. Most of the times they cost a lot!

Ambulances? You have to make an appointment too. Months before your visit to the hospital.

I know this is not the first world, but corruption has made the social security system what it is now. They're improving slowly, but it's not enough and the mafia inside the same system is too powerful.

The best is to get a health plan insurance yourself. You pay a fee to get attention at a private hospital, unfortunately the vast majority of the population can't afford it. I'm lucky to have one of those plans for me and my family thanks to the company I work for! A couple of years ago my wife got sick and her operation and 2 days at the hospital totaled more than $10,000 USD. Fortunately most of it was covered by the insurance

[rpgsearcherz]

I am in the USA, and really I disagree with a national health care system.

I do understand where people come from, regarding the "I can't afford it" train, but at the same time, look around. People abuse any government system we have. It's even as deep as people scamming the government out of college funds. (A school near me requires 90% attendance or they will kick you - this is a college...Because too many people sign up to school, get their grants, and then quit going after they get the money).

So really, I do not feel that it is worth our money to take care of people who *could* handle themselves, but refuse to because there's an easier route - our pockets.

And yes, I understand that some people need the help and could not get it otherwise, but there are so many that abuse the privlege that at least to me, I do not find it worth helping anymore.

[Echo_of_thunder]

rpgsearcherz, on Feb 22 2009, 10:26 PM, said:

I am in the USA, and really I disagree with a national health care system.

I do understand where people come from, regarding the "I can't afford it" train, but at the same time, look around. People abuse any government system we have. It's even as deep as people scamming the government out of college funds. (A school near me requires 90% attendance or they will kick you - this is a college...Because too many people sign up to school, get their grants, and then quit going after they get the money).

So really, I do not feel that it is worth our money to take care of people who *could* handle themselves, but refuse to because there's an easier route - our pockets.

And yes, I understand that some people need the help and could not get it otherwise, but there are so many that abuse the privlege that at least to me, I do not find it worth helping anymore.

There really should be some kind of system though RPG. With how things are not just in the USA but all around the world. People are getting to where they can not afford to pay to go to the hospitals are a doctor. There some be some kind of health care system

[rpgsearcherz]

The problem is coming up with one that will account for everyone yet not be exploitable. Every system will have its flaws but regardless, we are already spending billions of dollars a year to people who honestly do not even need it.

It's like welfare. I understand that some people honestly can't live without it(psychological issues, their place of residence, etc.) but you would be amazed at how many people get welfare and shouldn't.

Speaking to someone who used to work for USPS I learned that in some areas people will have 6-7 welfare checks, social security checks, etc. sent to various empty houses where they go to pick them up. It's yet another way people exploit the government for money.

So for health care I feel that if we had a nationalized system it should do everything in its power to minimize the corruption in the system.