Do this or I will come around and bop you on the nose no.3

[fpb]

The only good thing to come out of the MsScribe revelations affair has been that I have caught up with the details of the CharityWank affair, and specifically the health issues about a lady called Christina. The rest of it does not matter, but here is one person who, thanks to the wonders of private American medicine and insurance, is left in serious and life-threatening pain every stage of whose care sucks money from her family like Dracula. I am sympathetic to conservatives on a lot of things, but any conservative who wants to defend private medicine in the face of events like this is in my view a heartless so-and-so. However, never mind that. This lady needs help and needs help now. This is the address of her website: http://www.4christina.org/. I ASK EVERY PERSON WHO READS THIS TO VISIT IT AND DO WHAT YOU CAN. If you cannot give money, you can offer stuff to be sold on e-bay to raise funds, or even purchase items from Amazon through her rather than through any other source. Anything can help. But please, everyone who reads this, do something. And paste the address and story on your own LJs and websites. Spread the word. Get busy, dammit!

Comments

Re: Not you, too.

[rfachir.livejournal.com]

Peace. I bought something for my kids at Amazon using the Christina link. I'll only say Stephen Hawking's wife Jane lost her fight for private nurses with National Health, and had to get them financed by an American corporation to keep him out of a nursing home. (HP isn't the only active fandom out there.)

Re: Not you, too.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The NHS is not perfect. But the American system MAKES CERTAIN that people who cannot pay or who have to rely on insurance companies (who make their living by restricting the number of times we can make use of them) WILL INEVITABLY have to pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege of having a long and lingering illness that is devastating their family. Professor Hawking is a Cambridge chair holder, and that, believe you me, means that he is not short of the odd pound or two. Perhaps that was why his wife was not allowed a private nurse - I would not know. But he has relied on the health system for decades, where in America he would have had to pay for everything from wheelchair to voice synthetizer himself.

Re: Not you, too.

[rfachir.livejournal.com]

The voice synthesizer program was also a gift. Equalizer was written in California by Walt Woltosz. 15 words/minute. (I was fangirling Hawking long before Harry.)

Re: Not you, too.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I think there is a slight philosophical problem here. The choice seems to me quite simple. It is between a system that makes curing the sick the responsibility of the community (paid for by tax) and a system that makes it an occasion of enrichment for individual and businesses, and which in effect holds the sick to ransom. It is also between a system that sees no difference between the State jailing a bandit that threatens the life of a few people, and fighting a virus that threatens those of a hundred thousand citizens; and one that regards health as a purely private concern, of no interest to the community, and that effectively tells the sick to pay to be cured, then and there, or go hang. In this, as in the obsession with guns, America is the heretic among Western nations; and continues to act as though the rest of the world had nothing of value to offer. There is nothing that reminds us so forcefully how Americans are culturally and in part physically descended from the English of old, as this attitude; it is the very same as the old journalistic joke - "Fog in the English Channel - Continent cut off." Just the other day, American columnist Jack Kemp was gracious enough, after spending thirty years explaining the proximity between soccer and socialism, to admit that it could be an exciting game after all; to which the four billion people on five continents who knew that since they were children answer in chorus, thank you very much, o mighty master. America being almost the only country in the world where soccer is not widely popular, American discourse treated it, and still treats it, as if it was the damn furriners who were weird for liking it, and not you lot for not doing so. The rest of the universe ought to get in step with America. Well, sorry, but in the case of health and guns we are right and you are wrong, and we are not (I hope - though the Tory Blur seems committed to privatizing the NHS) going to exchange the better for the worse.

Re: Not you, too.

[rfachir.livejournal.com]

I may not me the brightest bulb, but after over a decade marriage I know better than to argue soccer with a Brit (or any European).
However, this is my last post as an insurance troll. (This industry has treated me well since 1988 and I will defend it, but I'm tired.)
We seem to be fighting a half full/half empty perception here. As you see it, she's spending her life savings on her illness. As I see it, her doctor visits and medical treatments (including surgery) were all paid for (until June) by insurance. Hefty bills were paid to her choice of doctors. The things that were not paid for by her insurance were not medical treatments or medicine, they were hotel rooms or dog-sitting or phone bills. In the NHS she would have been treated closer to home for her diabetes, mental health issues, high blood pressure, obesity, Chrome's disease, and all the other problems she has. She wouldn't have had the chance to go to the finest hospital in the country and be treated by the best doctors. She wouldn't have had the opportunity to think she was being experimented on because no one would have seen her often enough.
I do believe National Health is a better system, but it's not perfect. I do believe if we paid doctors by how healthy their patients were, people would be healthier. And if surgeons were not paid by how often they cut there would be less surgury. But that could make the sickest less likely to get the heroic treatments (as you observed was happening in Holland). There is no solution, only a way of erring less.
I think the insurance industry acts in good faith. It tries to cover the nescessary medical expenses of policyholders. It isn't above paying the CEO an exhorbitant sum, but it isn't balancing the books on the backs of the poor. If this woman was poor, the Medicaid program would pay her bills and she'd save the 9% of take-home pay she spent on private insurance. I wish I could do that, but I can't buy it "over-the-counter." The American system is the worst of both worlds - the state funds the very poor and the very old and the very sick, but the relatively young and healthy need to fend for themselves. It's nothing to be proud of, but don't say this woman is sick because of insurance. They paid for every treatment her doctors asked for, including the steroid overdose and the surgury and the chronic illness.

Re: Not you, too.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I never said that this woman was sick because of insurance. I do not even see insurance as a major part of the pproblem. Insurance provides the service because the State will not, and of course does so according to its own lights. My basic problem is with the view of the medical profession: namely, private entrepreneurs like barmen or car salesmen, or public servants like judges, policemen or priests? I know which I prefer. And incidentally, the reaction of the public speaks volumes. Americans treat their expensive doctors with good-natured contempt ("your doctor called" - "where from, the golf course?"); in Britain there is no profession that gets more respect, not one - doctors, and nurses too, are respected even beyond their merits, more or les treated as moral authorities.

Re: Not you, too.

[chthonya]

I think the insurance industry acts in good faith. It tries to cover the nescessary medical expenses of policyholders. It isn't above paying the CEO an exhorbitant sum, but it isn't balancing the books on the backs of the poor.

There's nothing wrong with an industry stepping into a gap in the system to fill a need - but to be convinced of the 'good faith' argument I'd have to be convinced that when proposals are made to fill that gap, those who are leading the industry are lobbying hard for the reform of the system into something that better meets the needs of all inhabitants of the US.

Re: Not you, too.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Good point.

Re: Not you, too.

[rfachir.livejournal.com]

What does 'good faith' have to do with National Health policy? The policyholder paid the premiums. The insurance company paid the benefits. Same as National Health would. But why do you think an insurance company would fight forcing people to pay their premiums? Do you get to "opt out" of National Health and pocket the difference?

I would love to see National Health here, but don't blame the industry lobby for lack of national will. It's just American greed - no one here wants to pay higher taxes unless they see a personal benefit. Too many people now see insurance as a "free" benefit they get from working for a large company, or the government, or being over 65, or having a low income. They won't pay more for it.

Re: Not you, too.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Yes, but that is beside the point. Like the medical profession itself, which fought the Clinton National Health reforms tooth and nail, the insurance business has built up a great position on the lack of national or state provision for illness and disability. Do not tell me that, if the opportunity for a serious health reform came up, they would not oppose it. They would have to, because it would mean an immediate hit in their pockets. And so the forces that oppose a sensible health policy in the US are not only, as you claim, popular short-sightedness and selfishness, but some important corporate and social interests. I still say that the responsibility of the insurance business is nothing like that of the medical profession (one American doctor I met felt that the AMA had hated Bill and Hillary Clinton so much that it was they who had brought about the Whitewater investigation and Cigargate; that is obvious nonsense, but it gives you an idea of the ferocity of feelings unleashed), but as things stand, it stands against reform.

Re: Not you, too.

[rfachir.livejournal.com]

Insurance is a short-term profit industry. All these years I thought it was all about reserves and only underwriting the people who wouldn’t get sick or die so we could invest the money and have it when most people would need it. All those years studying annuities and mortality and morbidity and compound interest must have brainwashed me. Thanks for clearing that misconception. I’ll start to work dismantling the system from within now.

Re: Not you, too.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I swear I do not understand what you think you are anwering. My whole point was about long-term loss of a whole market slice, if all citizens get basic health cover from the state. I am afraid you are showing rather more company patriotism than is wholly compatible with paying attention to what I actually say.

Re: Not you, too.

[chthonya]

Insurance is a short-term profit industry.

It is a long-term profit industry, surely? Or are health insurance companies in the US non-profit-distributing? If so, I apologise for my misunderanding of the situation.


All these years I thought it was all about reserves and only underwriting the people who wouldn’t get sick or die so we could invest the money and have it when most people would need it.

Yes, and energy companies are all about keeping the lights on and making sure we have the power to run the industry that maintains our way of life.

If they weren't successful in meeting those needs, they wouldn't be successful as businesses. But it doesn't follow that there is only one way of meeting those needs, and that companies will choose the one that is most beneficial to the interests of the citizen-on-the-street while ensuring the company can survive, rather than making the most profit for its shareholders. Indeed, in the UK at least, company law ensures that it is illegal for companies to do anything that would lessen shareholder profit.

Re: Not you, too.

[chthonya]

What does 'good faith' have to do with National Health policy? The policyholder paid the premiums. The insurance company paid the benefits.

My apologies - I read your 'good faith' comment as being 'good faith' to society at large, whereas (if I'm not misinterpreting your reply) you were referring primarily to the company's policyholders? Hence my response, which is probably indicative of the rather different terms in which the debate (as well as that on corporate social responsibility) is conducted in Europe.


Same as National Health would. But why do you think an insurance company would fight forcing people to pay their premiums?

It doesn't quite work that way here - or at least, it isn't thought about the same way. It's not like in Canada (well, BC, which is the only Province of which I have direct experience) where there's a health insurance deduction from the paycheck. We do pay a 'National Insurance' contribution, but it also covers unemployment benefits and the like. The political debate is never framed as 'well, we can spend this many millions more on nurses, but your NI contributions will have to increase' - it's seen as one of the things we pay for via taxation, and health vies for priority with education, defence, crime prevention and all the other things we expect our government to fund on our behalf. So right from the start the philosophy behind health care here is more communal.


Do you get to "opt out" of National Health and pocket the difference?

No, although the Conservative party has occasionally put forward the idea of a 'voucher' scheme which, from my understanding, would amount to that (it's one reason they are widely distrusted to look after the Health Service). There are those, of course, who opt out and don't pocket the difference, because they feel that going private gives them a better service - increasingly this is a company-supplied benefit, but only for very large companies. And the National Health here isn't seen as being as good as provisions in other European countries - but then, those countries pay for it. Part of the cultural problem we have in this country is that we're 'American' enough to want low taxes, but European enough to want good services.

Re: Not you, too.

[chthonya]

[Part 2]

I would love to see National Health here, but don't blame the industry lobby for lack of national will.

In a culture where most people get the information on which they form opinions from mass media and infomercials, any lobby group that seeks to influence public opinion has to bear some responsibility for the 'national mood'. A while back it was fashionable to talk about 'creating a level playing field' - without mentioning that companies work very hard to try to tilt that field in their favour, preferably without appearing to do so (I speak from experience of participating in such negotiations).


It's just American greed - no one here wants to pay higher taxes unless they see a personal benefit.

It seems to me that it's more that your taxes are individualised more than ours, but most people only compare the base rate of taxation. One of my relatives who's lived in Canada and the US told me that he ended up paying about the same in both places once everything had been taken into account, yet many people on both sides of the border seem to perceive Canadian taxes as being much higher. (And this particular relative is pretty right-wing, so it wasn't political bias speaking.)

It's true that in your system it's more clear that particular taxes result in a personal benefit. Here that clarity is rather resented - there are a lot of complaints about 'stealth taxes', i.e. taxes that don't show up on the payslip - as we are more used to thinking of taxes in terms of income tax. As you say, once people perceive a thing as being 'free' it's hard to 'start' making them pay for it!

In some ways, it's a question of which way of directing cash feels more psychologically comfortable. We like to think, for example, that our society looks after people who live here, so it's very difficult to interest people in issues of poverty within the UK because there's a tendency not to believe it exists - whereas the more privatised system in the US does seem to encourage people to give to charity (and the tax benefits probably help as well). Not that either outcome is particularly great for the poor, but that's a whole other discussion.


Too many people now see insurance as a "free" benefit they get from working for a large company, or the government, or being over 65, or having a low income.

That's interesting - I suppose most people I've come across haven't been in one of those situations, so my impression of the system is rather less comfortable. I've known people desperate for a job that pays health benefits so that their family can get their teeth seen to (actually, that's more of a problem here now that so many dentists have pulled out of the NHS), and one person who had had a major industrial accident one day after the company insurance kicked in, and was thanking God that it hadn't happened two days earlier else they'd still be paying it off.


They won't pay more for it.

Which, as you say, is a matter of perception. My impression of the US system (admittedly based on old statistics, so perhaps the analysis no longer holds) is that it provides a first-class medical service to those within the system, but that the method of payment is expensive to administer and there are huge numbers of people left without cover. I suppose though that those who currently benefit from the system might end up paying more if there was some cross-subsidy to ensure that everyone was covered, but I'd be guessing either way.