2 hours in the emergency room cost me......

[cteddiesgirl]

Don't forget Kath that National Insurance covers a whole lot more than your NHS and pension. It will also pay your Statutory Maternity Pay if you have maternity leave, if you go long term sick it pays Incapacity Benefit once your SSP runs out, Job Seekers Allowance should you lose your job through no fault of your own,Widows Allowance and Widowed Mother's Allowance if you should leave a widow (erm...you know what I mean) and a range of other State benefits. Not bad for just 8% of your pay.

Wow! So many benefits that have to be paid extra for here in the US.
How on earth could we actually be paying more for all these benefits and doing it happily?

That's true, and the UK is very different to the US in that every single mother is entitled to take 39 weeks paid maternity leave, during which time she's allowed a minimum of $240/week if she worked at least 20 hours a week prior to having the child. You can stay off work for a further 13 weeks but don't receive Statutory Maternity Pay during this time, but your job is secure for 52 weeks.

Dads can also get Statutory Paternity leave of at least $240/week for two weeks when the mother gives birth, although most employers offer full pay.

Whoa! And some employers here complain (loudly) if you take 6 weeks. After all, we're all supposed to be pretty much slaves to our jobs over here. Which is why we actually work more and take less vacations than other comparative countries.

Well sometimes we do think they should all stay away from our little pile of gold, but then we realise what it may be like to fall upon hard times so somehow we struggle through the day...

Honestly? I believe it saves money for everyone, in the long run. The government do not make it easy for people on welfare. It's best for everyone if they get a job. Besides, I don't know whether you've heard but we actually need people to do those lower-paid jobs....

So true. Someone who actually gets it. Unfortunately, here we all have to have the best paying jobs or we're not worthy.

Please show me where it is a well know fact. Nobody agrees on what the costs will really be.

Please do a better job with reading what I type. If I have not surgeries then I pay 7.5% and I would pay more a year under the UHC plan. If I have a surgery then I might pay less (premium + OOP) under the UHC plan, but that is the except not the normal year. So I am still ahead if I have to pay less for many years and a little more on a surgery type year.

You seem so mad. What do you do for a living? How old are you? How do you have money for the internet but not to pay the hospital? You could not even send in $10/month?

But, your insurance will probably be going up next year. Plus, look at all the other benfits the UK people are getting. That 8% also includes their pension. Meaning, we could also do away with the Senior Social Security. Those taxes could also go towards UHC.
It also includes so much more that we pay extra to have. That you are probably paying extra for.

As for what I do, I am a data entry operator for a lousy pay check. I can't get a better paying job because I can't get to those areas of town. I can't afford a car. If I could afford a car, I could get a better paying job. But, I have to have a better paying job to get a car. A vicious circle. I also have extra expenses that most people don't have. I have so many allergies it's insane. I even have to pay $8 a bottle just for soap. My shampoo costs $6 per bottle. And I have no other choices. I can't use anything else or I break out in hives. I also can't run to the dollar store and buy everything. Anything with an artificial fragrance I'm allergic to. Dish soap, laudry soap, fabric softener, lotion, make up, etc. An most things in the US that say fragrance free still have a fragrance added to the ingrediants that were used to make up the product. It's not cheap. Plus, I'm only 4'7". They don't make clothes for women my height. I also wear and odd bra size and odd shoe size. My last pair of shoes cost me $175. My last bra was $85. And I need a new one now. Shall I go on?
Oh. And I'm at work right now. Not at home.

Back to work for me.

 

[momto2girls]

Every time this subject comes up Canadians take offense to the exaggerations and down right lies people say about their system. They can say over and over again that they don't wait to see doctors, that they're taken care of just fine, that they like their system etc, etc

But then some US poster will talk about their aunt, who has a friend, who knows someone in Canada that died from having to wait to be seen by doctor and that is all the anti-UHC people hear.

Well, I haven't seen anyone say any of those things in this thread. And I was just clarifying how I feel so that the Canadians understand that I'm not dissing them or their system. I think it is great that it works for them. I just don't want it here in the US.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

I'm not offended, just glad to be in Canada! I agree with the earlier poster, that it is often frustrating to hear misinformation being given out about the Canadian system. I sometimes listen to American talk radio shows and it drives me crazy to hear the inaccurate information people are given.

Teresa

 

[Kath2003]

Whoa! And some employers here complain (loudly) if you take 6 weeks. After all, we're all supposed to be pretty much slaves to our jobs over here. Which is why we actually work more and take less vacations than other comparative countries.

Yeah, we get 24 days holiday a year (including 8 national holidays), rising to 28 days from April (including 8 national holidays). So besides national holidays, everyone is entitled to 4 weeks holiday per year minimum.

 

[chobie]

Well, I haven't seen anyone say any of those things in this thread. And I was just clarifying how I feel so that the Canadians understand that I'm not dissing them or their system. I think it is great that it works for them. I just don't want it here in the US.

Well, you weren't talking about just this thread you were talking about whenever the subject comes up. So, you obviously must have seen these before and know that people do like to trash the systems in other countries and give misinformation about how they don't work. You wanted to know why sometimes Canadians get offended on these threads and I provided you with an answer.

 

[momto2girls]

Well, you weren't talking about just this thread you were talking about whenever the subject comes up. So, you obviously must have seen these before and know that people do like to trash the systems in other countries and give misinformation about how they don't work. You wanted to know why sometimes Canadians get offended on these threads and I provided you with an answer.

Alrighty then.

I will say that this thread was a civil discussion until you posted your snark.:

"And you can sleep at night knowing that someone who makes less money than you and who therefore pays less into the system, gets the same quality of care as you do? Don't you think they should punished for having a lower paying job and be made to suffer medically?"



Just because someone doesn't believe that UHC is the answer to our health care problems doesn't mean that they want everyone to suffer.

 

[tlens]

never mind...

 

[nataliela]

I'm not sure if we will hear back from the OP...she went back and changed her original post about the disney fund.

 

[sandy2330]

Many keep saying all we have to pay is 8% and get NHC, pension etc. So what is all that SS and medicare premiums being used for? That system is going banckrupt and we are paying employer and employee are paying 6.2% on $102K + 1.45% on all earnings. That is far greater than 8% and we cannot fund senior benefits let alone NHC. Not to mention the many other benefits. This means the first $102K of income (90% will never pass it) pay
15.3% which is almost twice the 8% number quoted here.

I cannot post a link but look at the government site to verify my numbers.

So it seems that the US government is not effective with their programs (so why give them more), the others really use more than 8% but it comes from a different type of tax (maybe it is graduated) or maybe both.


Also wanted to add that the OP is a big reason why we have so many unisured they want fun over need and will stiff the hospital with the bills (thus raising the cost to the insurance companies).

 

[Kath2003]

Many keep saying all we have to pay is 8% and get NHC, pension etc. So what is all that SS and medicare premiums being used for? That system is going banckrupt and we are paying employer and employee are paying 6.2% on $102K + 1.45% on all earnings. That is far greater than 8% and we cannot fund senior benefits let alone NHC. Not to mention the many other benefits. This means the first $102K of income (90% will never pass it) pay
15.3% which is almost twice the 8% number quoted here.

I cannot post a link but look at the government site to verify my numbers.

So it seems that the US government is not effective with their programs (so why give them more), the others really use more than 8% but it comes from a different type of tax (maybe it is graduated) or maybe both.

Also wanted to add that the OP is a big reason why we have so many unisured they want fun over need and will stiff the hospital with the bills (thus raising the cost to the insurance companies).

The UK government does of course have other ways of raising money; but the point is that our standard of living is broadly equal to that of the USA, only we don't have to think twice about attending the ER, taking far longer maternity leave or getting almost double the vacation entitlement of your average American. The USA average income is $50,000. The UK average income is $52,000. You're comparing two very similar countries.

Of course there are downfalls to living in the UK, there are problems everywhere. That said, it seems that our government seems to place a far higher value on quality of life for everyone, rather than quality of life for those who can afford it. I don't know whether that makes your average family better or worse off than your average American family beyond the monetary value but I know where I'd rather live, and that's a country which would ensure that I or anyone else was taken care of if they were sick, unable to earn a high wage, pregnant or anything else, regardless of their socioeconomic background.

 

[chobie]

Alrighty then.

I will say that this thread was a civil discussion until you posted your snark.:

"And you can sleep at night knowing that someone who makes less money than you and who therefore pays less into the system, gets the same quality of care as you do? Don't you think they should punished for having a lower paying job and be made to suffer medically?"


Just because someone doesn't believe that UHC is the answer to our health care problems doesn't mean that they want everyone to suffer.

Since you have read many of these threads you are aware that many people say they are against UHC because they don't want to subsidize other people's health care. Snark or not, that is an oft-repeated sentiment whenever this subject comes up.

 

[sandy2330]

The UK government does of course have other ways of raising money; but the point is that our standard of living is broadly equal to that of the USA, only we don't have to think twice about attending the ER, taking far longer maternity leave or getting almost double the vacation entitlement of your average American. The USA average income is $50,000. The UK average income is $52,000. You're comparing two very similar countries.

Of course there are downfalls to living in the UK, there are problems everywhere. That said, it seems that our government seems to place a far higher value on quality of life for everyone, rather than quality of life for those who can afford it. I don't know whether that makes your average family better or worse off than your average American family beyond the monetary value but I know where I'd rather live, and that's a country which would ensure that I or anyone else was taken care of if they were sick, unable to earn a high wage, pregnant or anything else, regardless of their socioeconomic background.

I just find that all of our government programs cost many times (some times 10x) more than they say. So saying that our present premiums and medicare/medicaid would fund it all seems like a low number to me and we would need to fund it more.

Maybe the UK is a more efficient government when running a program. It is certainly smaller. There are over 300 million Americans. Being that large can have it's pluses and minuses. Maybe efficience is a minus.

I guess housing is one place we have a lower cost than the UK.

 

[Kath2003]

I guess housing is one place we have a lower cost than the UK.

True, we have 60million people (or 20% of the population of the US) living in an area the size of 3% of the US. That's like 20% of the US living in Michigan. House prices are generally similar to the NE USA.

 

[jodifla]

I'm not sure if we will hear back from the OP...she went back and changed her original post about the disney fund.

And with all the nasty things being said, who can blame her!


THe bottom line is people are really harsh and judgmental....they don't want people to having anything nice...or to look forward to...if god forbid they actually need some financial help in life.

I can completly see how a person would have a Disney fund, but not insurance. A Disney fund could be the $3 grand that you've saved over several years, and in no way will buy you a health insurance premium of a grand a month. EVERY MONTH.

 

[NEVERENOUGHWDW]

And with all the nasty things being said, who can blame her!


THe bottom line is people are really harsh and judgmental....they don't want people to having anything nice...or to look forward to...if god forbid they actually need some financial help in life.

I can completly see how a person would have a Disney fund, but not insurance. A Disney fund could be the $3 grand that you've saved over several years, and in no way will buy you a health insurance premium of a grand a month. EVERY MONTH.

There is a big difference between "nasty" remarks & a reality check.

I'm not sure how the OP thought sympathy was going to be so easy to obtain. Not being responsible for yourself and making childish decisions is something I choose not to applaud.

She did state she had gall stones, perhaps you could offer to pay for her treatment & possible surgery so she can go on her Disney vacation
Don't pass the collection plate this way.....

 

[spima3]

There is a big difference between "nasty" remarks & a reality check.
I'm not sure how the OP thought sympathy was going to be so easy to obtain. Not being responsible for yourself and making childish decisions is something I choose not to applaud.
She did state she had gall stones, perhaps you could offer to pay for her treatment & possible surgery so she can go on her Disney vacation
Don't pass the collection plate this way.....

well, I don't know if the OP changed her post or not, but from what I read, she remarked how she would probably have to put in on her Amex, that's a HUGE difference from what you are griping about.

 

[MrsToad]

Alrighty then.

I will say that this thread was a civil discussion until you posted your snark.:

"And you can sleep at night knowing that someone who makes less money than you and who therefore pays less into the system, gets the same quality of care as you do? Don't you think they should punished for having a lower paying job and be made to suffer medically?"



Just because someone doesn't believe that UHC is the answer to our health care problems doesn't mean that they want everyone to suffer.

But you see, here-in lies my frustration: What option do people suggest that will keep hard-working, but otherwise uninsured persons, from suffering? Isn't losing their home because for whatever reason they couldn't get insurance and were unlucky enough to develop an illness that might cost $180,000 or more a year to manage, suffering? Many, many people without insurance are hard-working, well-meaning people, not necessarily people who are lazy or improperly prioritizing their finances.

In this country, it seems criminal to allow one family to lose their home while another family, with the same medical problems, gets to keep their home because they are lucky enough to work for an employer who provides good insurance. It also seems selfish when I hear people say, "don't touch my insurance to fix the problem...what I might get in return could be worse." What do you all suggest we do instead?

 

[NEVERENOUGHWDW]

well, I don't know if the OP changed her post or not, but from what I read, she remarked how she would probably have to put in on her Amex, that's a HUGE difference from what you are griping about.

The OP was changed quit a bit.

 

[NEVERENOUGHWDW]

Originally Posted by gm
$3100 just for the emergency room, the doctors fees, cat scan and blood work fees are separate.

I had abdominal pain and I was thinking it could be appendix so we went to the emergency room at our local Tenet Hospital and i was taken in since not a lot of people, had a doctor come in check me and ordered an cat scan and did blood work and came out negative. He said I did have some gallstones but it was not on the side of where the pain was. So I asked him, well why the pain? and he mentioned maybe it could be associated with a herniated disc which may be giving pressure there and that go to my regular doctor and get a MRI to be sure.

So I was in an out within 2 hours cost $3100+physician fee+cat scan fee+blood work fee. Should come out to about $5000+

Oh and I have no insurance . I will have to probably dip from my disney fund or charge after just having paid of my American Express.


Original post above.

 

[spima3]

The program about Health Insurance was: Sick Around the World on Frontline.
Some really interesting information on the website; maybe many here would be interested in reading it.