Defender Central

[jp-]

Green, I certainly see the validity of the examples you provided. Don’t get me wrong.

And, it wouldn’t be stretching for me to say that were I to have something very bad happen to me I’d like to be fixed up at no cost to me. Having $60,000 in debt after one accident/medical emergency is not something that I look forward to. However, I’d like for all of the Ethiopians to have excellent health care too, and why not all of Africa? There comes a point in your model of national health care where it will not work. Exactly what that point is, I can’t tell you, but it will happen as the population increases. Just because we may only have to pay a little more in taxes, and might not have to currently wait to see a doctor are not reasons enough to go to nationalized healthcare. Who’s to say what this system will look like in 10 years, or 20? It could be bankrupt and cost 10 times more to operate, and doctor wait times could increase dramatically (especially as we import more and more illegal aliens unchecked into our country). As others on here have pointed out, the government would not close down the operation at that point, it would just raise taxes and keep a then failing system propped up, until such time as more money was required. We have seen the government work. Cutting costs and jobs are next to impossible even in the face of unimaginable incompetence from the leaders of these government programs. Just because the system works elsewhere does not mean it will work well here, or that it will continue to work well where it has been instituted. I’m not saying that it is impossible, but it will require numerous things to be successful in the long-term, such as a very stable population, a stable GDP, and medical costs that do not rise considerably over the inflation rate on a year-to-year basis.

Again, I refer back to my earlier posts, there are many things we can do to lower the cost of our current system rather than adopt a new one.

-All future posts by PM- I promise. This is a great thread though.

[yorker]

Wow....All this from a silly picture of a parking lot full of used Land Rovers!
All hail the power of the Rover.....

Jason T.

what?! Land Rovers? where!!?

[greenmeanie]

There you go - straight from the NHS. See that's the reason for nationalised health care - the ambulances are cooler.




Jp-
The simple answer to your statement is that free national health care is available to anyone who pays taxes into the system. It used to be available for anyone until we started having an influx of US citizens arriving and abusing our system expecting free care. The law has now changed to make it that visiting foriegn nationals are expected to pay for the care they receive.

Another thing to be aware about is that the UK NHS is sub divided into hospital trusts. Each trust is essentially run like a business except that it is non-profit. This helps introduce some accountability, efficiency and cost effectiveness.

Now I understand that the Canadian system is far more flawed which is why I have not used it as an example. You are correct in that any system introduced must be created in a way to give value for money and my taxes.

Wikipedia has a reasonable article addressing arguements from both sides and also soem interestign comparisons. I say this as it saves me writing another dissertation.

[Momo]

I've found this thread really interesting, and it's nice to depart from the same old LR topics. Personally I look at this thread as a glimpse of who you guys are beyond our common interest. Sort of like the campfire bull sessions that naturally drift away from Rovers.

What do you think the goal of nationalized healthcare would be? Better affordability? Better access? Decreased morbidity/mortality rates? Greater innovation? We can't have it all.

There is no such thing as a free system, Gregor. You said it yourself, maybe without even realizing it.

I pay good money for a family of three (soon four), and we use the heck out of our plan. When I compare the cost to the benefit it's worth every penny and most importantly I get to decide.

There's no excuse for almost anyone to go uncovered, but the vast majority of Americans who have no health coverage have chosen to opt out. Not my problem. But to take more of my earnings to pay for a compulsory system that will require frank rationing and inevitably run a deficit? No way. That's an encroachment on my liberty. Use your own liberty.

In my role as a paramedic I have had plenty of patients who call us for minor problems, get a ride to the ER, and pull out the Medi-Cal card (That's the CA state funded plan). Lots of those patients had an Escalade in the driveway, an enormous plasma TV on the wall, or other nonsense. What should I pay for your poor choices?

The US has led the world in medical research, pharmaceuticals & tech development not because the government directed it or funded it but because the free market made it possible. All those socialist systems that are supposedly better than ours have benefitted from American innovation.

And about those WHO rankings? France is number one, and their life expectancy is two years better than ours. Big deal. Informed consumers who make good lifestyle choices, exercise their freedom to choose their plan, and make use of preventive care- that's what we need. Not an expansion of central authority over our lives.

The main problem with our current system is third party payment. Clearly we need to work that out. Tort reform is sorely needed too. However, the delivery of services, basic and advanced, is very good.

And oh yeah, a Ford ambulance chassis beats a Land Rover any day unless you are in the styxx. There, I said it. How's that for controversial?

[Rineheitzgabot]

I've found this thread really interesting, and it's nice to depart from the same old LR topics. Personally I look at this thread as a glimpse of who you guys are beyond our common interest. Sort of like the campfire bull sessions that naturally drift away from Rovers.

What do you think the goal of nationalized healthcare would be? Better affordability? Better access? Decreased morbidity/mortality rates? Greater innovation? We can't have it all.

There is no such thing as a free system, Gregor. You said it yourself, maybe without even realizing it.

I pay good money for a family of three (soon four), and we use the heck out of our plan. When I compare the cost to the benefit it's worth every penny and most importantly I get to decide.

There's no excuse for almost anyone to go uncovered, but the vast majority of Americans who have no health coverage have chosen to opt out. Not my problem. But to take more of my earnings to pay for a compulsory system that will require frank rationing and inevitably run a deficit? No way. That's an encroachment on my liberty. Use your own liberty.

In my role as a paramedic I have had plenty of patients who call us for minor problems, get a ride to the ER, and pull out the Medi-Cal card (That's the CA state funded plan). Lots of those patients had an Escalade in the driveway, an enormous plasma TV on the wall, or other nonsense. What should I pay for your poor choices?

The US has led the world in medical research, pharmaceuticals & tech development not because the government directed it or funded it but because the free market made it possible. All those socialist systems that are supposedly better than ours have benefitted from American innovation.

And about those WHO rankings? France is number one, and their life expectancy is two years better than ours. Big deal. Informed consumers who make good lifestyle choices, exercise their freedom to choose their plan, and make use of preventive care- that's what we need. Not an expansion of central authority over our lives.

The main problem with our current system is third party payment. Clearly we need to work that out. Tort reform is sorely needed too. However, the delivery of services, basic and advanced, is very good.

And oh yeah, a Ford ambulance chassis beats a Land Rover any day unless you are in the styxx. There, I said it. How's that for controversial?

Is that the river, styx? Might be, if Greenweenie gets his way.

Momo: I enjoyed your measured, intelligent, input. Are you running for office in 2010?

By the way, which is more cost effective to maintain; the Defender or the Ford? Gotcha, Greenie. Perfect example of government waste. I truly would love to see an exact cost comparison between a Defender and other, comparable vehicles, over their life-cycle.

I know, I know, I said I wouldn't write anything else, but MOMO's piece was so compelling...

[4flattires]

I like ice cream.

There....I said it.

I like it in a house, but not when using my mouse. I like it here, and I like it there.

I like ice cream....everywhere.

The Dr.

[leafsprung]

There's no excuse for almost anyone to go uncovered, but the vast majority of Americans who have no health coverage have chosen to opt out.

You fail to recognize those who are denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition or are otherwise deemed to be a bad investment. There is very little incentive for insurance companies to actually cover those who need care and to pay claims and there is every incentive not to.

The US has led the world in medical research, pharmaceuticals & tech development not because the government directed it or funded it but because the free market made it possible. All those socialist systems that are supposedly better than ours have benefited from American innovation.

And yet for every dollar spent on research two were spent on advertising. Sure makes me feel good that my relatives exhorbitant prescription costs go towards filling the dumpsters behind doctors offices with unwanted pens, mugs, and notepads. Im also glad there are plenty of weight loss pills, male enhancements, tooth whiteners and depillitory creams (after all thats what makes money right?) Being rail thin and hairless while sporting a bleached smile and a b0ner is the same as being healthy right?

And about those WHO rankings? France is number one, and their life expectancy is two years better than ours. Big deal. Informed consumers who make good lifestyle choices, exercise their freedom to choose their plan, and make use of preventive care- that's what we need. Not an expansion of central authority over our lives.

How much is two years of your life worth to you? Its difficult to measure quality of health, but Im willing to bet it is significantly higher as well. The thing is, there is generally no difference in your personally autonomy between the systems. You currently have an insurance company (who profits directly from denying your family heathcare) with the exact same authority over your lives that you are bemoaning; AND you are happy about it!

[Rineheitzgabot]

There....I said it.

I like it in a house, but not when using my mouse. I like it here, and I like it there.

I like ice cream....everywhere.

The Dr.

Dude.

Hey man, I can see those goofy-ass eyes bulging out on that 88! Why haven't you registered?? Wasssup?!

Okay. Do I need to say it? Please.

ps: Doctor Seuss was a communist

[TedW]

Buy Time Magazine this week.

QUOTE

"And about those WHO rankings? France is number one, and their life expectancy is two years better than ours. Big deal. Informed consumers who make good lifestyle choices, exercise their freedom to choose their plan, and make use of preventive care- that's what we need. Not an expansion of central authority over our lives. "


France spends 11% of their GDP on healthcare, and they cover everyone. We spend 16% of our GDP on healthcare, and 45 million of us (roughly 15%) are left out. And French folks smoke a lot more than we do. And they still live longer. Go figure.

This has been a very civil discussion, IMO. And very important. Kudos to the SERIES Land-Rover community for being so high-minded. Let's all keep open minds and look for solutions in spite of where the answers might come from.

[greenmeanie]

Momo,
In reply to your question as it was a good one.
Better affordability -
Yes. Ted W makes the point. I also like the idea that an illness would not bankcrupt me.
Better Access -
Yes. I like the idea of being able to sign up with a local doctor instead of having urgent care half way across the city and my child's doctor 7 miles away because that is what the health plan offered my employers dictates.
Decreased morbidity/mortality rates-
It certainly can't hurt. Even dying now costs money.
Innovation -
Leafsprung makes the point. The same drugs are prescribed under both systems so where's the difference other than marketing? The US system may provide a more lucrative market but that does not mean that there are no other markets.

I think I made the point about taxes early on. I don't mind paying them if I get value for money. That certainly applies to health care. My opinion is tha nationalised health care presents more value for money than private health insurance.

Your point about MediCal is exactly why national health is desirable. As everyone contributes, everyone is entitled to the ambulance regardless of their means. Poor choices or not you don't pay any more, the same way your lifestyle cannot be criticised in your moment of need.

Your point on third party payment and tort reform is well made. I also resent the idea that I can be billed several parties through a hospital for services without an itemised bill. Should an anesthetist be able to add a charge to my bill without ever being required for a procedure. Who knows if his service is not itemised.

The Rover thing was just added to provide some Rover content for our moderator and I hope you got that. Other than the sign there is not much to make that thing a medical vehicle. Anyway everyone knows the best Rover ambi is the 101fc.

[pvkd]

As a UK citizen who has experienced both systems I can safely say I'd take the nationalised health care any day of the week. I have two siblings who have had cause to make good use of the system - one with nerve damage from a car crash and the other with a degenerative nerve issue affecting their throat. Both have received excellent care that would have bankcrupted me under the US system. My grandmother received care that while not extravagent, alllowed her to live a comfortable life up till her 100th year. Not all doctors in the world do it just for the money - some people actually choose the career based onthe idea that it is a noble calling. Understand that in our country you always have the option of buying private health care should you desire it.

I never trust the US system where the doctors are essentially bribed by the drug companies to prescribe their product or test whether you need it or not. Since when did an insurance agent become the expert on the limit of the care I should receive? Nationalized health care is not free as you pay for it with taxes. I do, however, regard it as value for money compared to the services I receive here.

Ok rant off.

Greenmeanie,

As another British Subject I also with experience of both systems I agree.

[JSBriggs]

Dude.

...

ps: Doctor Seuss was a communist

Speaking of the enviroment, 'A Thneed's a Fine-Something-That-All-People-Need!'

-Jeff

[Les Parker]

Hmm. I too have had the experiences of both formats, my only postive on the west side of the Atlantic, is the ease of getting prompt attention and being able to choose the specialist I see. The quality of care, the ease of throwing me some pills (as they cure ALL ailments, dont they?) is wanting in both zones.
Stay healthy !!! Not needing anyone's assistance is, I believe, the safest way.

[sayers]

How did dreaming of defenders turn into a healthcare issue ?

[JSBriggs]

How did dreaming of defenders turn into a healthcare issue ?

see post #9, that is the tangent point.

-Jeff