The abuse of our NHS by foreigners continues...

First topic message reminder :



Health tourists are jumping the queue ahead of NHS patients for life-changing cataract operations, an investigation has revealed.

At least 300 foreign patients flying in from countries including Nigeria and Zimbabwe have been offered surgery before British taxpayers because their condition is deemed a priority.

The treatment costs the NHS up to £2,500 a time including translation costs but many patients return home and never pay it back.

Yet they are being fast-tracked by doctors as their condition is deemed very complex and urgent, leading to lengthy delays for British patients.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3683605/Health-tourists-jump-NHS-queue-Foreign-patients-given-eye-surgery-Britons-wait-months.html

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Maybe that's not the point.  Maybe you should read the stories you post, to get the facts straight.  This was an outreach by a very charitable, benevolent British service.

Next you'll be calling the WHO a Nazi party arm.

Yeah, but does your country treat people for free?

Free is a misconception that others countries citizens coming here don't understand in my opinion.
I like millions of others of us paid into the pot for donkeys years when never getting poorly
but now some of us do need the help but WE'VE paid for it and immigrants illegal or not havn't but jump the queues.

Don't make an issue out of this guys because we are actualy running a surplus on the deal.

The cost of treating British people who become ill while travelling in Europe is five times higher than the cost of treating ill visitors from other European countries in the UK, official figures show.

The Department of Health data, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, shows that it cost £30m in 2013-14 to meet the costs of European visitors using the National Health Service. This is less than one-fifth of the £155m cost to other states in the European single market for treating ill British tourists.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/07/treating-uk-tourists-in-europe-costs-five-times-more-than-equivalent-cost-to-nhs

Has anyone got a link to the FOI data so that we can see if the Daily Mail has cherry-picked out the data that it likes?

The US has to provide a welfare programme to give healthcare to all it's citizens for those that can't afford to pay. It's the law..

https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title19/1905.htm

The system is that if you can afford to pay you pay. If you are of limited means then you pay a proportion of the bill based on your earnings. Look up medi-cal for the stae of California> I saw a table that showed the earnings related to the proportion that would have to be paid but I can't recall where it was but I'll try and find it.

It doesn't apply to visitors who will have to pay and if you have health insurance you would be best to check because in many cases you have to pay the bill and recover it from your insurance provider. If they believe you were negligent in taking care of your health then they possibly won't pay out.

Irn Bru wrote:The US has to provide a welfare programme to give helathcare to all it's citizens for those that can't afford to pay. It's the law..

https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title19/1905.htm

The system is that if you can afford to pay you pay. If you are of limited means then you pay a proportion of the bill based on your earnings. Look up medi-cal for the stae of California> I saw a table that showed the earnings related to the proportion that would have to be paid but I can't recall where it was but I'll try and find it.

It doesn't apply to visitors who will have to pay and if you have health insurance you would be best to check because in many cases you have to pay the bill and recover it from your insurance provider. If they believe you were negligent in taking care of your health then they possibly won't pay out.

California could be the first state to expand the ACA healthcare to include the illegal immigrants
http://dailysignal.com/category/topics-health-care

But this ACA and that title 19 only applies to the state of CA. 
It does not include our entire country ...
I wish it was true but it is not; SOTUS passed the right for each state to 'waiver' / opt out of the ACA if they chose too and my state did just that!  My governor was under the false impression that he had NO POOR PEOPLE living in KS.

4EVER2 wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:The US has to provide a welfare programme to give helathcare to all it's citizens for those that can't afford to pay. It's the law..

https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title19/1905.htm

The system is that if you can afford to pay you pay. If you are of limited means then you pay a proportion of the bill based on your earnings. Look up medi-cal for the stae of California> I saw a table that showed the earnings related to the proportion that would have to be paid but I can't recall where it was but I'll try and find it.

It doesn't apply to visitors who will have to pay and if you have health insurance you would be best to check because in many cases you have to pay the bill and recover it from your insurance provider. If they believe you were negligent in taking care of your health then they possibly won't pay out.

California could be the first state to expand the ACA healthcare to include the illegal immigrants
http://dailysignal.com/category/topics-health-care

But this ACA and that title 19 only applies to the state of CA. 
It does not include our entire country ...
I wish it was true but it is not; SOTUS passed the right for each state to 'waiver' / opt out of the ACA if they chose too and my state did just that!  My governor was under the false impression that he had NO POOR PEOPLE living in KS.

I don't understand the American system of care at all.
I don't know if I'm typical of most but as I understand their laws which I don't really if honest. If you have no medical insurance you are buggered and left to die.?????

blackie333 wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:
California could be the first state to expand the ACA healthcare to include the illegal immigrants
http://dailysignal.com/category/topics-health-care

But this ACA and that title 19 only applies to the state of CA. 
It does not include our entire country ...
I wish it was true but it is not; SOTUS passed the right for each state to 'waiver' / opt out of the ACA if they chose too and my state did just that!  My governor was under the false impression that he had NO POOR PEOPLE living in KS.

I don't understand the American system of care at all.
I don't know if I'm typical of most but as I understand their laws which I don't really if honest. If you have no medical insurance you are buggered and left to die.?????

You've summarized it up rather neatly, actually!  And that's why the GOP-republican party has fought the ACA {affordable care act} tooth & nail since the inception of that plan - they undermined that same type of Universal Health Care Plan back when Bill Clinton was our POTUS and he asked his wife HRC to work on a committee to pull one together - big pharma and their lobbyist went after her - the committee and the plan that they came up with that year.  And then later those same Republicans and even some of the Big Pharma agreed that HRC plan would have been far better then the 18 trillion dollar Medicare Part D prescription plan that GWB shoved down out collective throats.  Medicare covers retiree's & disabled 65 forward but it cost monthly now, Medicaid is for some assistance: food stamps/child care expenses/children's doctors/some dental once a year/some help with doctor visit costs and emergency procedures.  But both of those are very - very complicated billing and takes a long time to explain what gets paid 100% and what does not.

But it's always been: those that could afford to pay out of pocket & partially paid through their employer as a perk/benefit could buy a health care package - some good/fair/barely covered anything except an emergency procedure and those monthly premiums were costly but better than nothing.  But - BUT if you had a 'family coverage' and you had one child that had a major medical issue and your hit your ceiling for your entire family ...you were F'd and then the hospital could either provide you the necessary treatment or not and your child went without - whatever it was that he/she needed to sustain their life pain free. If you worked then you earned to much money for Medicaid {state funded assistance} but that only covered certain things and not every treatment plan for more then maybe once a month. 
Pre-existing conditions: if an insurance company was purchased by a larger one and your company was going to have to modify/change their insurance carrier - say your husband or wife had a cancer that was being treated by the older named carrier - the 'NEW' named provider might decide that - OOPS, look at how much you cost that other company ...we don't want you and your pre-existing problem and they didn't have to take you - they could put a 'Rider On Your Policy' and never cover that specific issue or not cover you at all.
The ACA was trying to close up those gouging loop holes and stop so many of those 'price gouging premiums and pre-existing battles' and keep it affordable for ALL AMERICANS since it was going to be mandatory.  And there would be reimbursements for qualifying families/elderly/handicapped that couldn't afford their monthly insurance premiums ...but then the GOP/Republicans said - 'No-No-No, you can't force these Americans to pay this, this isn't in our constitution' and it went before the Supreme Court of the US {SCOTUS} and they ruled **BAM** every state will have the right to 'WAIVER/OPT OUT' if they so desire'! 
So, yes ...333 Veterans return home from fighting having been told that every medical requirement that they suffer or need will be taken care of by their VA; and then they got lost in the mammoth back log of paper work - back logged by far too many veterans and not enough staff - antiquated hospitals and equipment and a computer data base system that still was operating off of a COBOL {circa 1980} data base = old/slow/and corrupt and loads of files lost.
People die waiting on meds - people die from not able to pay for their prescriptions - people die because they can't wait 9 months to get into a VA doctor - people die because the Big Pharma was allowed to jack up their special required meds 250% - people die in America because the clinical trial for their chemo treatment wasn't able to get more funding and they aren't through the program yet - people die in America because we just SUCK AT GIVING A RATS ASS ABOUT OUR HEALTH INSURANCE AND WE JUST DON'T LEARN. 

Outstanding presentation, 4Eva.  Have a greenie.

Let me add that medicare is designed to pay only 80% of the cost of healthcare.  You can purchase a medi-gap policy to cover the gap, but know what?  It costs as much as the old 100% policy did, and you get only the 20%.  Insurance companies aren't dumb, they will find the portion that is market-based, and jam it right up your ass.  That's how capitalism works.

And RW'rs don't necessarily do it because of economic theory.  Actually, they hate people.  They'd do it their grandmother, if they could.  The ACA is a market-base plan, designed to avoid socialized medicine.  Actually, it was designed by the Heritage Foundation, a super conservative think-tank, back when it looked like real socialized medicine (like the NHS) would make it through.  The idea was to forestall socialized medicine.

Now, they call it Obamacare.  Get it?  They designed it, and now they attribute it to the other guy...who they hate anyway because he is black.  But it's still a market-based system, and not a tax-based system.  You have to buy it through the market, while the government hopefully keeps the costs down through price controls.  But let a Republican administration get in, and forget those price controls.

We need real socialized medicine.  Hell, we've got socialized military defense at an outrageous cost.  Split the military budget down the middle, and we can have both.  And we can beg off all those baby-killing wars at the same time.

4EVER2 wrote:

blackie333 wrote:

I don't understand the American system of care at all.
I don't know if I'm typical of most but as I understand their laws which I don't really if honest. If you have no medical insurance you are buggered and left to die.?????

You've summarized it up rather neatly, actually!  And that's why the GOP-republican party has fought the ACA {affordable care act} tooth & nail since the inception of that plan - they undermined that same type of Universal Health Care Plan back when Bill Clinton was our POTUS and he asked his wife HRC to work on a committee to pull one together - big pharma and their lobbyist went after her - the committee and the plan that they came up with that year.  And then later those same Republicans and even some of the Big Pharma agreed that HRC plan would have been far better then the 18 trillion dollar Medicare Part D prescription plan that GWB shoved down out collective throats.  Medicare covers retiree's & disabled 65 forward but it cost monthly now, Medicaid is for some assistance: food stamps/child care expenses/children's doctors/some dental once a year/some help with doctor visit costs and emergency procedures.  But both of those are very - very complicated billing and takes a long time to explain what gets paid 100% and what does not.

But it's always been: those that could afford to pay out of pocket & partially paid through their employer as a perk/benefit could buy a health care package - some good/fair/barely covered anything except an emergency procedure and those monthly premiums were costly but better than nothing.  But - BUT if you had a 'family coverage' and you had one child that had a major medical issue and your hit your ceiling for your entire family ...you were F'd and then the hospital could either provide you the necessary treatment or not and your child went without - whatever it was that he/she needed to sustain their life pain free. If you worked then you earned to much money for Medicaid {state funded assistance} but that only covered certain things and not every treatment plan for more then maybe once a month. 
Pre-existing conditions: if an insurance company was purchased by a larger one and your company was going to have to modify/change their insurance carrier - say your husband or wife had a cancer that was being treated by the older named carrier - the 'NEW' named provider might decide that - OOPS, look at how much you cost that other company ...we don't want you and your pre-existing problem and they didn't have to take you - they could put a 'Rider On Your Policy' and never cover that specific issue or not cover you at all.
The ACA was trying to close up those gouging loop holes and stop so many of those 'price gouging premiums and pre-existing battles' and keep it affordable for ALL AMERICANS since it was going to be mandatory.  And there would be reimbursements for qualifying families/elderly/handicapped that couldn't afford their monthly insurance premiums ...but then the GOP/Republicans said - 'No-No-No, you can't force these Americans to pay this, this isn't in our constitution' and it went before the Supreme Court of the US {SCOTUS} and they ruled **BAM** every state will have the right to 'WAIVER/OPT OUT' if they so desire'! 
So, yes ...333 Veterans return home from fighting having been told that every medical requirement that they suffer or need will be taken care of by their VA; and then they got lost in the mammoth back log of paper work - back logged by far too many veterans and not enough staff - antiquated hospitals and equipment and a computer data base system that still was operating off of a COBOL {circa 1980} data base = old/slow/and corrupt and loads of files lost.
People die waiting on meds - people die from not able to pay for their prescriptions - people die because they can't wait 9 months to get into a VA doctor - people die because the Big Pharma was allowed to jack up their special required meds 250% - people die in America because the clinical trial for their chemo treatment wasn't able to get more funding and they aren't through the program yet - people die in America because we just SUCK AT GIVING A RATS ASS ABOUT OUR HEALTH INSURANCE AND WE JUST DON'T LEARN. 

That's what I mean about not understanding your medical rules and procedures.
Here there are no rules on the monetary amount it costs to take care of anyone and in many cases the care lasts well into their old age.
You can come over here and be taken ill and we look after you for nothing which I think is only right but the illegal immigrants we allow in
are really pushing our buttons and could given time pee us all off and mean a change to our system of care for all.

Blackie, let me put it to you this way. If you go to the local Tesco and try to buy groceries, but you don't have the money to pay for them, are they going to let you have them? No, not even if you tell them your family is starving.

Well, that's how health care in America works. If you have cancer but can't afford to have it treated, that's the story of you -- you died of cancer because you didn't have the foresight to become wealthy enough to pay for the treatment.

Yes, people are left to die. More often that not, though, you just go bankrupt trying to get lines of credit to pay for your treatment and end up dying a bit later.

Obama took a few baby steps to try to make it a little better, and it's one of the major reasons the right in America hate him.

You might want to check this out too: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/leaked-documents-show-ukip-leaders-approve-nhs-privatisation-once-it-becomes-more-acceptable-to-the-9993050.html

the idea that people are left to die cause they can't afford it is very foreign idea to Aussies and Brits too

veya_victaous wrote:the idea that people are left to die cause they can't afford it is very foreign idea to Aussies and Brits too

And it's a very repugnant idea to the majority of Americans. It just goes to show what I've said here before -- the right wing in this country wields power that no group should have in a true democracy.

This is really telling. A group of Democrats and Republicans were alternatively told that Barack Obama or Donald Trump has called for universal health care in America. Here are the results:



As the pollsters point out:

The question isn’t made up, either. Both Barack Obama and Donald Trump have, at various times, “praised the idea of universal health care.”

But in general, when you take partisan preference out of it, you get this:



Most Americans support a government program that would provide universal coverage -- just like most Americans support an array of gun control measures. But Congress keeps rejecting those implementations because they can't muster any Republican support.

I thought Obamacare was supposed to alleviate the symptoms of non-medical care?

See. I'd like to see Tommy turn away a little American girl, or an elderly Amercian man, or a mum of three, from our NHS if we could save their lives.

How do you turn away someone who needs medical help?

eddie wrote:I thought Obamacare was supposed to alleviate the symptoms of non-medical care?

See. I'd like to see Tommy turn away a little American girl, or an elderly Amercian man, or a mum of three, from our NHS if we could save their lives.

How do you turn away someone who needs medical help?

Well, it would probably depend on their skin color and opinion of foreigners

Obamacare has helped but it's basically just a law that requires people to have health insurance and an array of policies that makes health insurance cheaper.

It would be like addressing starvation by requiring people to spend part of their money on food, and making grocers charge less. Would that help? Sure. Is it a really round-about way of reaching the goal? Absolutely. But what it does is make sure that businesses are still making money.

So surely, any decent presidential candidate, would want to build an NHS - wouldn't that garner votes? Isn't that what the American people want?

I don't get why, in 2016, (which is still too late in the day!), somebody hasn't made the decision to build a free healthcare?!

Am I being naive? Sorry, don't know much about American politics so I might sound a bit immature asking this very basic question.

eddie wrote:So surely, any decent presidential candidate, would want to build an NHS - wouldn't that garner votes? Isn't that what the American people want?

I don't get why, in 2016, (which is still too late in the day!), somebody hasn't made the decision to build a free healthcare?!

Am I being naive? Sorry, don't know much about American politics so I might sound a bit immature asking this very basic question.

I can answer that with one video. Bricks shall be shat, but this is what the American right believes -- and they mobilize a lot more readily than the left wing in America, which is predominantly working class and can't take time off to go to a protest or a rally:

It's not just about the policy for a lot of right-wing Americans. They're brought up to believe we're the only free country and universal health care would take away that freedom, and they're also taught that universal health care is for foreign (un-American) countries.

I listened to about 3 minutes of Reagan's waffling but I think I got the gist.

In a nutshell, the American (RW?) government don't want to provide free healthcare and would rather the people pay towards it and they make the people think it's their idea.

eddie wrote:I listened to about 3 minutes of Reagan's waffling but I think I got the gist.

In a nutshell, the American (RW?) government don't want to provide free healthcare and would rather the people pay towards it and they make the people think it's their idea.

The American RW has this weird religious-like devotion to capitalism and free enterprise, basically. They think if the government provides anything, we're going to be like the Soviet Union.

I shit you not, there are Republicans who absolutely detest the (government-run) U.S. Postal System, even though it's not funded with tax dollars and even though it's required by the constitution. They think businesses should be delivering the mail.

They also hate Social Security for seniors, public education for kids -- some of them go so far as to say that policing and firefighting should be private enterprises. And if you want to get really nauseous, look at what they've done to our prison system:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/06/private-prisons-profit

That is unbelievable! Why is that allowed to happen?
Your country seems to treat it's people really poorly. It's all about turning a dollar!

"The for-profit prison industry sells itself as a cost-effective option for cash-strapped states, but according to a new study from the University of Wisconsin, privatised prisons are keeping inmates locked up longer in order to boost profits.

Researcher Anita Mukherjee studied eight years* of data from Mississippi, which has one of the highest incarceration rates in the country, and found that private prisons there doled out twice the amount of infractions against inmates, lengthening their sentences by an average of two or three months. The extra time, Mukherjee found, adds up to an increase of about $3,000 in additional costs per prisoner. Mukherjee also noted that inmates housed in private prisons were more likely to wind up back in the system after being released—despite industry claims of lower recidivism rates."

eddie wrote:I thought Obamacare was supposed to alleviate the symptoms of non-medical care?
See. I'd like to see Tommy turn away a little American girl, or an elderly Amercian man, or a mum of three, from our NHS if we could save their lives.
How do you turn away someone who needs medical help?

Because our medical & prescription drug based system is all a privatetized type of business and if 'WE' ...the very American's that need those life sustaining things in our lives had either be wealthy & healthy until our very last breath. 
But the global misconceptions about what the ACA tried to do and what it got shaved down to & then what the SCOTUS ruled for each state to allow them the 'RIGHT' to opt out - well we might not see the same numbers of American dying from lack of health care but we will still see American dye from lack of affordable health care - while that was going on the ugly Repug's were generating those horror stories & lying videos of PP (planned parenthood) staffers talking about selling fetal baby parts and the Repug's started voting against further funding for PP across this country and all of those clinics that provided health services to poor neighborhoods started closing due to lack of funding

And on my 2 or 3 day here ...Didgey-dooer had the gall to call me a liar about my post and the ACA because "HE KNEW MORE THAN I DID ABOUT THE ENTIRE TOPIC BECAUSE HE WAS SO WELL READ"
Ya, that burned deeply ...to have such a fuck-wit defame me for something I've fought and worked so hard for locally within my state, just to have my gov. Waiver KS, because he could    
BEYOND BELIEF

blackie333 wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Not at all...


It is there for all British people... regardless of whether they pay in or not...


What is selfish is those foreigners who come over here to try to use it for their own personal gain, purely to try to con our system for free treatment, and at the expense of the british people...


They cost us a billion pounds a year in treating them and then they disappear without paying!!!


While other British people who have paid in all their lives are denied treatments or drugs or operations because of lack of funds!!!

There is a advert playing frequently now on our TV's asking us to donate 50p or something like that to save some kids sight but having done that before I know how many letters you then get clogging up your letter box asking you to donate to everything under the sun.
It never stops once you have given out your name and address to one charity or good cause

Yes I know. I used to donate to a charity called "Sightsavers", and a couple of others, but I got overwhelmed by requests from other charities that I just stopped. Maybe I'll start again, but charities need to sort this problem out.

In a moment of madness I answered an appeal to help a little disabled African girl. I received a letter saying "thank you this will help the girl and her Family to live a better life. Her "family" included Father, Mother, Auntie and 5 children. I was wiling to help the girl but I was not told about supporting her family. I said sorry i'd support the girl but no one else.

4EVER2 wrote:

blackie333 wrote:

I don't understand the American system of care at all.
I don't know if I'm typical of most but as I understand their laws which I don't really if honest. If you have no medical insurance you are buggered and left to die.?????

You've summarized it up rather neatly, actually!  And that's why the GOP-republican party has fought the ACA {affordable care act} tooth & nail since the inception of that plan - they undermined that same type of Universal Health Care Plan back when Bill Clinton was our POTUS and he asked his wife HRC to work on a committee to pull one together - big pharma and their lobbyist went after her - the committee and the plan that they came up with that year.  And then later those same Republicans and even some of the Big Pharma agreed that HRC plan would have been far better then the 18 trillion dollar Medicare Part D prescription plan that GWB shoved down out collective throats.  Medicare covers retiree's & disabled 65 forward but it cost monthly now, Medicaid is for some assistance: food stamps/child care expenses/children's doctors/some dental once a year/some help with doctor visit costs and emergency procedures.  But both of those are very - very complicated billing and takes a long time to explain what gets paid 100% and what does not.

But it's always been: those that could afford to pay out of pocket & partially paid through their employer as a perk/benefit could buy a health care package - some good/fair/barely covered anything except an emergency procedure and those monthly premiums were costly but better than nothing.  But - BUT if you had a 'family coverage' and you had one child that had a major medical issue and your hit your ceiling for your entire family ...you were F'd and then the hospital could either provide you the necessary treatment or not and your child went without - whatever it was that he/she needed to sustain their life pain free. If you worked then you earned to much money for Medicaid {state funded assistance} but that only covered certain things and not every treatment plan for more then maybe once a month. 
Pre-existing conditions: if an insurance company was purchased by a larger one and your company was going to have to modify/change their insurance carrier - say your husband or wife had a cancer that was being treated by the older named carrier - the 'NEW' named provider might decide that - OOPS, look at how much you cost that other company ...we don't want you and your pre-existing problem and they didn't have to take you - they could put a 'Rider On Your Policy' and never cover that specific issue or not cover you at all.
The ACA was trying to close up those gouging loop holes and stop so many of those 'price gouging premiums and pre-existing battles' and keep it affordable for ALL AMERICANS since it was going to be mandatory.  And there would be reimbursements for qualifying families/elderly/handicapped that couldn't afford their monthly insurance premiums ...but then the GOP/Republicans said - 'No-No-No, you can't force these Americans to pay this, this isn't in our constitution' and it went before the Supreme Court of the US {SCOTUS} and they ruled **BAM** every state will have the right to 'WAIVER/OPT OUT' if they so desire'! 
So, yes ...333 Veterans return home from fighting having been told that every medical requirement that they suffer or need will be taken care of by their VA; and then they got lost in the mammoth back log of paper work - back logged by far too many veterans and not enough staff - antiquated hospitals and equipment and a computer data base system that still was operating off of a COBOL {circa 1980} data base = old/slow/and corrupt and loads of files lost.
People die waiting on meds - people die from not able to pay for their prescriptions - people die because they can't wait 9 months to get into a VA doctor - people die because the Big Pharma was allowed to jack up their special required meds 250% - people die in America because the clinical trial for their chemo treatment wasn't able to get more funding and they aren't through the program yet - people die in America because we just SUCK AT GIVING A RATS ASS ABOUT OUR HEALTH INSURANCE AND WE JUST DON'T LEARN. 

Food stamps for the poor is another thing I will never agree with or understand???????????????
That's like putting a label on people saying "I'm a loser and dependent on your help".
Sorry but that is just wrong and unacceptable to me.
I love the Yanks but will never understand your system of care

blackie333 wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:
You've summarized it up rather neatly, actually!  And that's why the GOP-republican party has fought the ACA {affordable care act} tooth & nail since the inception of that plan -
****edited out my mid section >>>
People die waiting on meds - people die from not able to pay for their prescriptions - people die because they can't wait 9 months to get into a VA doctor - people die because the Big Pharma was allowed to jack up their special required meds 250% - people die in America because the clinical trial for their chemo treatment wasn't able to get more funding and they aren't through the program yet - people die in America because we just SUCK AT GIVING A RATS ASS ABOUT OUR HEALTH INSURANCE AND WE JUST DON'T LEARN. 

Food stamps for the poor is another thing I will never agree with or understand???????????????
That's like putting a label on people saying "I'm a loser and dependent on your help".
Sorry but that is just wrong and unacceptable to me.
I love the Yanks but will never understand your system of care

My wise grandfather called it the 'Grand Plan for the Republican Party'; in order to adjust the budget and offset their own beneficial tax cuts and perks for being the RICH BASTARD PARTY/GOP - they would need a 'Poor Folk' place to cut funding too and hence the reason that the Republican party acquiesced to the Federally Funded Medicaid/Medicare/Food Stamp Program across America. 
And by golly, my grandfather was 90% correct in his POV. 

It's what they do and stealing trillions of our Social Security funds out of that funding to balance their CBO {congressional budget office} grossly over spending and never paying the trillions back ...it's how they've ruined & ran our country when left in office.
GWB and every president before him has used and abused the surplus that all of the wage earners get deducted from each of our pay checks that is to be set aside for just Social Security http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/03/facebook-posts/did-george-w-bush-borrow-social-security-fund-war-/   GWB - did it to support his 2 wars {still borrowed billions from China}, used some to bail out our Wall Street/Stock Market/Bank bail out of 2008 - the auto industry etc., etc., etc.,

Most disturbingly, the CBO says that Social Security is now officially cash negative.
However, during the intervening 75 years, Social Security collected about $2.5 trillion more than it paid out. Those surplus funds were used to buy special bonds from the U.S. Treasury, creating the so-called Social Security Trust Fund.

That surplus amounted to a loan from the people to the government.

But the government spent all that money on various other budget items — every penny of it. And now that the Baby Boomers (a quarter of the population) have begun retiring, that debt will have to be paid back by the federal government from its general expenditures — the annual budget.
 While the idea of slashing Social Security is now being discussed in Washington, the politicians should remember that American workers have already paid an excess of $2.5 trillion into that system. To meet the anticipated higher retirement costs of the baby boom, workers and their employers contributed more than was needed over the past few decades to meet current costs.
 That money is now owed to them. They expect to be paid back. The problem is that the money is gone. It's all been spent.
http://independentreport.blogspot.com/2011/02/congress-robbed-social-security-and.html

So, these elderly/handicapped/retiree's/military vets ...that are having to live on what they had zero choice in what was taken out of our pay checks - are watching our elected officials slash the very benefits that help sustain them since our Social Security monthly stipend is so woefully small and our daily living expenses are so grossly high and the choices between buying our prescription meds - paying our utilities - or buying food for their tables is a mental/teeth gritting business to be faced each and every month!

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:So surely, any decent presidential candidate, would want to build an NHS - wouldn't that garner votes? Isn't that what the American people want?

I don't get why, in 2016, (which is still too late in the day!), somebody hasn't made the decision to build a free healthcare?!

Am I being naive? Sorry, don't know much about American politics so I might sound a bit immature asking this very basic question.

I can answer that with one video. Bricks shall be shat, but this is what the American right believes -- and they mobilize a lot more readily than the left wing in America, which is predominantly working class and can't take time off to go to a protest or a rally:

What is interesting about this piece is the many times that Reagan uses the word "socialized medicine'.  Throughout the Cold War the idea of socialism was the enemy.  So, he brings up the term several times.  It's an example of the jingoism by which the RW understand politics...not reason, just thinking with symbols.  

The synonymous term in today's jargon is 'terrorism'...mention terrorists (and Muslims) and you are doing exactly what RW'rs did in the 1950's by mentioning Russia and socialism.  You are waving the flag of 'evil' and 'enemy'.

Now, the reason why the real elite don't want any sort of government healthcare is the money.  Huge sums of money are made by keeping healthcare in the market arena, and the funnel is easily turned into a monopoly by just mentioning the sacrosanct nature of health.  Physicians take on the aura of demi-gods.  New meds are called "wonder drugs"...like 'holy water'.  The pharma industry snatches up new medicines (developed mostly in university labs) and calls them their own...boasting about how much money they spend on research.  The university spent the money, they reap the rewards.  They protect this huge gold mine by calling any program that compromises it, 'socialized medicine'.

If Bernie Sanders has done anything for America, it is that he has made 'socialism' a safe political philosophy for America.  The term 'socialism' cannot be used so adversely in today's RW jargon and jingoism, as Reagan was doing in that clip.  It's not the big boogie man in the dark of your bedroom.  After all, socialism is simply an alternate form of organization--a bit more advanced--of economics and political authority.  

The old myth that capitalism and the free market is more efficient is given the lie by simple economic theory.  Capitalism requires four elements of production: land, labor, capital and entrepreneurship.  Socialism eliminates the need for capital ownership, and it's hand maiden, profits.  So, with socialism, there's one less mouth to feed in the family, so to speak.

One of the largest and most powerful socialist organizations in the world is the American Military...it's owned by government, exists for the people, paid for by the people, and performs for the people.  If you want an example of how close the RW can snuggle up to socialism (if they aren't looking), suggest that we cut back on the military.  They will have fits...and yet, it's a socialist organization.

Indeed, the example of the military is the perfect one to hold up for healthcare.  It works...actually, the American Military is a thing of functional beauty.  It's powerful and immensely successful..  It's a classic example of how, if you want something done that is near and dear to you, you bring it inside your socialist government nest.

With Bernie Sanders and his legacy, I think America is ready for a real form of socialized medicine.

Would the USA give their healthcare, if they had one, FREE to every Tom, Dick and Abdul,
would 'you' USA citizens approve of it?????

If you are a prisoner in an British jail, and need medical treatment urgent or non urgent, you can get the treatment immediately on the nhs!
If you are a law abiding citizen you can fcuking well wait.

Major wrote:Would the USA give their healthcare, if they had one, FREE to every Tom, Dick and Abdul,
would 'you' USA citizens approve of it?????

As I said before, we are already doing it.

Look, money is money. Who cares whether it's a part of a heath care program, fgs? You just don't like giving away money.

That's a basic decision your government makes. Don't like it? Run for Parliament and rewrite the law.

Major wrote:Would the USA give their healthcare, if they had one, FREE to every Tom, Dick and Abdul,
would 'you' USA citizens approve of it?????

ABSOLUTELY, as I've clearly explained to every 'Tom/Dick & Harry' that will listen; we all end up paying for those that are in need of medical care in some form or another ...they enter into our local/regional Hill-Burton funded hospitals and obtain Freebie services because it's an emergency and then the balance of the bill just sits on the Accounts Receivable {A/R aging} and sucks up all of the profits that help keep that local hospital open for the rest of us!

We give away > >

$34.0 Billion

planned in Foreign Aid for FY 2017

Explore ForeignAssistance.gov  to see how the U.S. Government invests in countries around the world. http://beta.foreignassistance.gov/

And for our biggest blood sucking leech upon our budget our DOD {department of defense} >

Today President Barack Obama sent Congress a proposed budget request of $582.7 billion in discretionary budget authority to fund the Department of Defense in Fiscal Year 2017 (FY 2017). http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/department-of-defense-dod-releases-fiscal-year-2017-presidents-budget-proposal 

Yes, dear Stormee ...I've always felt that we were a intelligent nation that could take the health care provided examples from Canada/UK/Australia/Japan/Norway and create something that would be the best model for all of our citizens!

Ben Reilly wrote:Blackie, let me put it to you this way. If you go to the local Tesco and try to buy groceries, but you don't have the money to pay for them, are they going to let you have them? No, not even if you tell them your family is starving.

Well, that's how health care in America works. If you have cancer but can't afford to have it treated, that's the story of you -- you died of cancer because you didn't have the foresight to become wealthy enough to pay for the treatment.

Yes, people are left to die. More often that not, though, you just go bankrupt trying to get lines of credit to pay for your treatment and end up dying a bit later.

Obama took a few baby steps to try to make it a little better, and it's one of the major reasons the right in America hate him.

You might want to check this out too: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/leaked-documents-show-ukip-leaders-approve-nhs-privatisation-once-it-becomes-more-acceptable-to-the-9993050.html

Hate isn't a word I understand babe, I hate no-one but disagree is a word I fully understand and I'm willing and able to disagree with anyone on any subject if I think of them as being wrong and ill informed

eddie wrote:That is unbelievable! Why is that allowed to happen?
Your country seems to treat it's people really poorly. It's all about turning a dollar!

"The for-profit prison industry sells itself as a cost-effective option for cash-strapped states, but according to a new study from the University of Wisconsin, privatised prisons are keeping inmates locked up longer in order to boost profits.

Researcher Anita Mukherjee studied eight years* of data from Mississippi, which has one of the highest incarceration rates in the country, and found that private prisons there doled out twice the amount of infractions against inmates, lengthening their sentences by an average of two or three months. The extra time, Mukherjee found, adds up to an increase of about $3,000 in additional costs per prisoner. Mukherjee also noted that inmates housed in private prisons were more likely to wind up back in the system after being released—despite industry claims of lower recidivism rates."

Oh, it gets worse. Private prison companies hire lobbyists to get politicians to pass tougher crime laws, so that more people are locked up and private prison companies get more business.

Private Prisons Corporations: Private prison corporations make millions by incarcerating people who have been imprisoned for drug crimes, including marijuana. As Republic Report’s Matt Stoller noted last year, Corrections Corporation of America, one of the largest for-profit prison companies, revealed in a regulatory filing that continuing the drug war is part in parcel to their business strategy. Prison companies have spent millions bankrolling pro-drug war politicians and have used secretive front groups, like the American Legislative Exchange Council, to pass harsh sentencing requirements for drug crimes.

http://www.republicreport.org/2012/marijuana-lobby-illegal/

And like I was saying, being right-wing in America means being almost perversely pro-capitalism. That American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) tries to privatize public education, toughen immigration laws, make it harder for poor people to vote, opposes Obamacare, has helped pass laws that allow fracking operations to keep some of the chemicals they use secret ... the list goes on. In Kansas, ALEC passed a law that makes it illegal for cities to provide free internet access. They oppose taking action on climate change. They've lobbied to have acts of civil disobedience to protect animals or the environment designated as terrorism.

I don't think for a second that this tendency is limited to American conservatives -- as I was pointing out earlier: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ukip-general-secretary-calls-nhs-5037494

Irn Bru wrote:Don't make an issue out of this guys because we are actualy running a surplus on the deal.

The cost of treating British people who become ill while travelling in Europe is five times higher than the cost of treating ill visitors from other European countries in the UK, official figures show.

The Department of Health data, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, shows that it cost £30m in 2013-14 to meet the costs of European visitors using the National Health Service. This is less than one-fifth of the £155m cost to other states in the European single market for treating ill British tourists.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/07/treating-uk-tourists-in-europe-costs-five-times-more-than-equivalent-cost-to-nhs

Has anyone got a link to the FOI data so that we can see if the Daily Mail has cherry-picked out the data that it likes?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/04/health-tourists-cost-uk-taxpayers-nearly-6billion-in-eight-years/


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2470994/TRUE-cost-health-tourism-Foreigners-cost-NHS-2BN-year.html