Originally posted by Sabiancym

Explain free market health care?  Are you going to start charging people for E.R. visits?  Not treat them until they pay?  If not, then you're providing socialized medicine.  Which is not free market health care.

If so, then you are severely crippling a large group of people who are unable to pay for health care.  Leading to backalley doctors, the spread of disease, child birth deaths, etc.  Not to mention the civil unrest that would occur.  There would be riots all over the place.

Take your choice.

Well, on the one hand the United States already does have socialized medicine for some sectors of the population.  It's called medicare and medicaid.

In addition, there is also a system in place for ER patients.  Treat them first, worry about renumeration second.  No one in the United States gets denied treatment who needs it.

But I love how people who have come to think that healthcare is a right of the country's citizens apparently think that all the healthcare workers across the country are going to continue to work in the industry for peanuts.  Doctors have to endure some of the most grueling education of any profession and to have to enter into the workforce with the massive amounts of debt, and they are going to continue to do it happily on a fraction of the salary that they now receive?

There's a much easier answer: Tort reform.  Democrats, turn against the trial lawyers and force them out of the back pocket of the Democratic Party.  Take the frivolous law suits out of the equation.  You would be amazed at how much healthcare costs would come down.

Originally posted by Cleffy

Originally posted by Xirik

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Easy, it won't.  Socializing the costs of anything, always makes the costs go up.

And yet even with Canada's higher tax I am still paying less then the average American on healthcare.

 

I think you misunderstand the health care systems.  The US health care system pays for a lot more then just US citizens.  The US along with India are the nations that contribute the most to medical research.  Nearly all medical research in the world is linked to the US.

http://www.canadianmedicinenews.com/2007/11/canadas-greatest-medical-research.html

  If Canada and all the other 1st world nations did not limit the costs on their health care system, the average US citizen would not be paying so much.

Canada's system has price controls(If a medication works on you then the doctor's will try and see if a cheaper brand will work for you. and rationing(Oh? and in America if you don't have the money you will die or get extremely worse before you get to go into the emergency. Rationing sounds like we don't have enough supplies. That is untrue. We have all the supplies we need but we Long waiting lists because we let all Canadians have healthcare free. that places people on waiting lists for months using the public method.  The private options cost roughly 3 times more then the average cost of US health insurance.  Canada also contributes very little to medical research

To bad that medical research only goes to the rich and not the middle-class as the costs of the American healthcare system will continue to rise.

http://www.canadianmedicinenews.com/2007/11/canadas-greatest-medical-research.html

The fact that offering government subsidies for any sector raises costs is a well proven trend.  Education subsidized with easy education loans has jacked up the average cost of college adjusted for inflation by 12 fold while decreasing the value and level of education in the few decades it has been offered.  US Healthcare has 60% of it being funded from the state and federal governments.  Its costs rise on average 10% / year.  Corn subsidies has increased the price of Corn.

Health Care in United States, Canada
Canadians Pay Less than Americans for Medical Care and are Healthier

In the United States, lawmakers are looking for ways to reform the health care system to better control costs and improve care. The search for answers has led many to look north at Canada’s health care system, largely a publicly funded single-payer system supported by the government. By contrast, U.S. health care is largely paid for by a mix of public and private insurance programs.

So which system works better?

First health:

* Infant mortality. Canadian babies are more likely to live than American babies. In the United States, infant mortality is 50.8 per 10,000 live births, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), That’s 23% higher than in Canada, where infant mortality is 41.4 per 1000 live births, according to the OECD.
* Life expectancy. Canadians live longer than Americans. According to the OECD, life expectancy in the United States is 77.8 years. A Canadian can expect to more than two years longer (80.4 years).
* Preventable deaths. Canadians are less likely than Americans to die from in ways that could have been prevented by quick access to effective health care, according to a study supported by the Commonwealth Fund. For every 100,000 people in the United States, about 110 die each year from preventable causes. That compares to 77 per 100,000 in Canada.

Now, what about the cost of health care?

* The United States as a nation spends a higher portion of its wealth on health care. In 2007, Canada spent 10% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. The United States spend 15.3% of its GDP on health care, according to the OECD. (As it turns out the government of each country spends about the same percentage of GDP on health care (7%). However, the Canadians spend far less private wealth on health care (3% compared to 8.3% of GDP).
* The per-capita spending for health in the United States is almost 90 percent more than it is in Canada. In 2007, health care spending per capita in the United States was $7,290. That compares to $3,895 per person in Canada, according to the OECD.

What about access to care? Critics charge that an important flaw in Canadian system is the problem of waiting times. Canadians must wait to have certain procures done. Americans, those with the cash or insurance, presumably don’t. However, many Americans have neither the cash nor the insurance. The result:

* About a quarter of Americans with above-average incomes go without needed care due to costs, according to the OECD. As for Americans with below-average incomes, over half (52%) go without care because they can’t pay for it.
* By comparison, in Canada, 7% of those with above-average income and about 18% of those with below-average income with go without care due to costs, according to the OECD

Can all these differences in health and spending be attributed to the differences in systems alone. Perhaps not. But the differences in the systems probably have a significant role, considering so many similarities between the United States and Canada in terms of wealth, education, and culture, and considering that health care statistics of the two countries pretty much matched before Canada introduced its system after 1971, according to "Has Canada Got the Cure" by Holly Dressel (YES! Magazine, posted August 4, 2006).

In reforming its health care system, the United States could find valuable lessons in Canada’s example.

all about health care in canada

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw

The Truth About Canada and there health care.

Originally posted by DeadDOG

all about health care in canada

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw

The Truth About Canada and there health care.

 

Hmm... one guy already showing bias in the first few seconds into the video or a Canadian who has gone through the health system a lot of times.

When I broke my arm =20min wait time

when I am am sick and go to my family doctor it takes 1h- 1h 1/2

My grandfather had brain cancer and and had surgery to take the cancer out. He wouldn't have been able to pay for that in the US.

Blood tests = 30mins.

does the Canadian healthcare system have faults? yes! However I think the American one has more.

I posted facts for a Reputable organization(that can be held accountable) and you used a youtube video blogger(who cannot be held accoutable) (lol).

Could it be that facts = socialism now?

If a person ran for Prime-Minister saying he was going to take away our health-care and take the US system he would get 0% of the vote.

Have fun with your tin foiled hat good sir.

Just the begining of things to come.

Mayo Clinic in Arizona to Stop Treating Some Medicare Patients

Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) -- The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care, will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little.

More than 3,000 patients eligible for Medicare, the government’s largest health-insurance program, will be forced to pay cash if they want to continue seeing their doctors at a Mayo family clinic in Glendale, northwest of Phoenix, said Michael Yardley, a Mayo spokesman. The decision, which Yardley called a two-year pilot project, won’t affect other Mayo facilities in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota.

Obama in June cited the nonprofit Rochester, Minnesota-based Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio for offering “the highest quality care at costs well below the national norm.” Mayo’s move to drop Medicare patients may be copied by family doctors, some of whom have stopped accepting new patients from the program, said Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a telephone interview yesterday.

“Many physicians have said, ‘I simply cannot afford to keep taking care of Medicare patients,’” said Heim, a family doctor who practices in Laurinburg, North Carolina. “If you truly know your business costs and you are losing money, it doesn’t make sense to do more of it.”
 

Originally posted by Xirik

First health:

* Infant mortality. Canadian babies are more likely to live than American babies. In the United States, infant mortality is 50.8 per 10,000 live births, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), That’s 23% higher than in Canada, where infant mortality is 41.4 per 1000 live births, according to the OECD.
* Life expectancy. Canadians live longer than Americans. According to the OECD, life expectancy in the United States is 77.8 years. A Canadian can expect to more than two years longer (80.4 years).
* Preventable deaths. Canadians are less likely than Americans to die from in ways that could have been prevented by quick access to effective health care, according to a study supported by the Commonwealth Fund. For every 100,000 people in the United States, about 110 die each year from preventable causes. That compares to 77 per 100,000 in Canada.

Now, what about the cost of health care?

* The United States as a nation spends a higher portion of its wealth on health care. In 2007, Canada spent 10% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. The United States spend 15.3% of its GDP on health care, according to the OECD. (As it turns out the government of each country spends about the same percentage of GDP on health care (7%). However, the Canadians spend far less private wealth on health care (3% compared to 8.3% of GDP).
* The per-capita spending for health in the United States is almost 90 percent more than it is in Canada. In 2007, health care spending per capita in the United States was $7,290. That compares to $3,895 per person in Canada, according to the OECD.

What about access to care? Critics charge that an important flaw in Canadian system is the problem of waiting times. Canadians must wait to have certain procures done. Americans, those with the cash or insurance, presumably don’t. However, many Americans have neither the cash nor the insurance. The result:

* About a quarter of Americans with above-average incomes go without needed care due to costs, according to the OECD. As for Americans with below-average incomes, over half (52%) go without care because they can’t pay for it.
* By comparison, in Canada, 7% of those with above-average income and about 18% of those with below-average income with go without care due to costs, according to the OECD

Can all these differences in health and spending be attributed to the differences in systems alone. Perhaps not. But the differences in the systems probably have a significant role, considering so many similarities between the United States and Canada in terms of wealth, education, and culture, and considering that health care statistics of the two countries pretty much matched before Canada introduced its system after 1971, according to "Has Canada Got the Cure" by Holly Dressel (YES! Magazine, posted August 4, 2006).

In reforming its health care system, the United States could find valuable lessons in Canada’s example.

The article you are pasting from doesn't really investigate, they are just crying out look at these numbers.  I will try to explain a little further into those numbers.

• Infant Mortality:  The US has the best pre-natal care in the world.  As a result many children are attempted to be saved that in other nations doctors would not even bother due to the cost and chances involved.  If these children born pre-maturely ended up dieing then its counted towards infant mortality where as if the doctor didn't attempt to save the child it would not be counted.
• Life Expectancy:  The US is exposed to more influences that are counted towards their Life Expectancy then Canada.  Casualties of War, natural disasters, and victims of violent crimes have resulted in a higher death rate in the US that skews this result.
• Preventable Deaths:  Above point.
• Cost per capita:  When you are paying for medical research you end up paying more.  Also people made the point above that capitalistic socialism is more costly then other forms of socialism because it provides the easy money without the cost controls, then putting the industry into an artificial inflation.  Also costs are easy to control when you put hard caps on how much can be spent towards health care and denying health care if it costs too much.
• Choosing not to use health care:  Of course people who have access to free health care use it...

Onto your point about Canada's medical breakthroughs.  They will seem to be higher when other countries contribute almost nothing to the science of medicine.  The small list would hardly be representative of all the medical breakthroughs done through US investment over a years time.  Maybe even a months time.  Have you seen some of those "Medical Breakthroughs"?  We made a cereal for infants...

I'm wondering, and I think I remember Obama talking about it during his campaign, but will malpractice insurance go down? Or was he saying because of this new system somehow there will be less malpractice issue's and that will make it go down?

I ask because malpractice insurance, and, the cost of a Doctors education is why they must charge higher fee's now. Throw into it, people like me, who have old injury's which got worse over many years, not able to earn what they use to, loose there insurance for food money, then hit the ER 3 times in a month, and cant pay.

This has to really hurt, the money, hospitals take in, and the amount they pay out. I don't know how doctors in hospitals make it.

And they can't make me better, it would break them. They can treat my symptoms, and get my Vitals stable, which I'm grateful for.

And I don't see how this new system is going to change that. I guess I don't see a silver lining in the current system, or the new one, but I fail to understand many things.

I was a child when these things happened, we had good insurance, but my folk's never took me to the doc for alot of things, now I feel like other people are supporting me, and it's true, feels like crap, and in the future that won't change.

Crap

Tort reform was a major issue that republicans wanted.  In a speech in August Obama promised some sort of tort reform was in the bill.  However like many of Obama's promises on whats in the bill, he lied.

Originally posted by Cleffy

Originally posted by Xirik

First health:

* Infant mortality. Canadian babies are more likely to live than American babies. In the United States, infant mortality is 50.8 per 10,000 live births, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), That’s 23% higher than in Canada, where infant mortality is 41.4 per 1000 live births, according to the OECD.
* Life expectancy. Canadians live longer than Americans. According to the OECD, life expectancy in the United States is 77.8 years. A Canadian can expect to more than two years longer (80.4 years).
* Preventable deaths. Canadians are less likely than Americans to die from in ways that could have been prevented by quick access to effective health care, according to a study supported by the Commonwealth Fund. For every 100,000 people in the United States, about 110 die each year from preventable causes. That compares to 77 per 100,000 in Canada.

Now, what about the cost of health care?

* The United States as a nation spends a higher portion of its wealth on health care. In 2007, Canada spent 10% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. The United States spend 15.3% of its GDP on health care, according to the OECD. (As it turns out the government of each country spends about the same percentage of GDP on health care (7%). However, the Canadians spend far less private wealth on health care (3% compared to 8.3% of GDP).
* The per-capita spending for health in the United States is almost 90 percent more than it is in Canada. In 2007, health care spending per capita in the United States was $7,290. That compares to $3,895 per person in Canada, according to the OECD.

What about access to care? Critics charge that an important flaw in Canadian system is the problem of waiting times. Canadians must wait to have certain procures done. Americans, those with the cash or insurance, presumably don’t. However, many Americans have neither the cash nor the insurance. The result:

* About a quarter of Americans with above-average incomes go without needed care due to costs, according to the OECD. As for Americans with below-average incomes, over half (52%) go without care because they can’t pay for it.
* By comparison, in Canada, 7% of those with above-average income and about 18% of those with below-average income with go without care due to costs, according to the OECD

Can all these differences in health and spending be attributed to the differences in systems alone. Perhaps not. But the differences in the systems probably have a significant role, considering so many similarities between the United States and Canada in terms of wealth, education, and culture, and considering that health care statistics of the two countries pretty much matched before Canada introduced its system after 1971, according to "Has Canada Got the Cure" by Holly Dressel (YES! Magazine, posted August 4, 2006).

In reforming its health care system, the United States could find valuable lessons in Canada’s example.

 

The article you are pasting from doesn't really investigate, they are just crying out look at these numbers.  I will try to explain a little further into those numbers.

• Infant Mortality:  The US has the best pre-natal care in the world.  As a result many children are attempted to be saved that in other nations doctors would not even bother due to the cost and chances involved.  If these children born pre-maturely ended up dieing then its counted towards infant mortality where as if the doctor didn't attempt to save the child it would not be counted.For those few americans that have the money for it. It might have the equipment but that equipment is usually sitting there for those people that want to pony up a extra $$$$ even though they might go homeless because of it.

 

• Life Expectancy:  The US is exposed to more influences that are counted towards their Life Expectancy then Canada.  Casualties of WarCanada is in Afghanistan though not in the same amount as America, natural disasters, Your system really showed up really good for Katrina. and victims of violent crimes have resulted in a higher death rate in the US that skews this result. of those violent crimes are the most poor people fighting to live. Usually they can't afford care.
• Preventable Deaths:  Above point.I wonder why its higher per cappita in the US... I would say guns but then so hick on this forum would go all 4th Amendment on me.
•  
• Cost per capita:  When you are paying for medical research you end up paying more (That only the few can use cause of cost.).  Also people made the point above that capitalistic socialism is more costly then other forms of socialism because it provides the easy money without the cost controls, then putting the industry into an artificial inflation.  Also costs are easy to control when you put hard caps on how much can be spent towards health care and denying health care if it costs too much.
• Choosing not to use health care:  Of course people who have access to free health care use it...(They aren't choosing not to have it its because they can't afford healtchare.

Onto your point about Canada's medical breakthroughs.  They will seem to be higher when other countries contribute almost nothing to the science of medicine.  The small list would hardly be representative of all the medical breakthroughs done through US investment over a years time.  Maybe even a months time.  Have you seen some of those "Medical Breakthroughs"?  We made a cereal for infants...

India
Main article: Healthcare in India

India has a universal health care system run by the local (state or territorial), governments. The government hospitals, some of which are among the best hospitals in India,[39] provide treatment at taxpayer expense. Most essential drugs are offered free of charge in these hospitals.

Government hospitals provide treatment either free or at minimal charges. For example, an outpatient card at AIIMS (one of the best hospitals in India) costs a one time fee of rupees 10 (Around 20 cents US) and thereafter outpatient medical advice is free. In-hospital treatment costs depend on financial condition of the patient and facilities utilized by him but are usually much less than the private sector. For instance, a patient is waived treatment costs if he is below poverty line. Another patient may seek for an air-conditioned room if he is willing to pay extra for it. The charges for basic in-hospital treatment and investigations are much less compared to the private sector. The cost for these subsidies comes from annual allocations from the central and state governments.

Primary health care is provided by city and district hospitals and rural primary health centres (PHCs). These hospitals provide treatment free of cost. Primary care is focused on immunization, prevention of malnutrition, pregnancy, child birth, postnatal care, and treatment of common illnesses.[citation needed] Patients who receive specialized care or have complicated illnesses are referred to secondary (often located in district and taluk headquarters) and tertiary care hospitals (located in district and state headquarters or those that are teaching hospitals).[citation needed] However, the fact that the government sector is understaffed and underfinanced and poor services at state run hospitals forces many people to visit private medical practitioners.

Now organizations like Hindustan Latex Family Planning Promotional Trust and other private organizations have started creating hospitals and clinics in India, which also provide free or subsidized health care and subsidized insurance plans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care#India

As you said, India does have lots of Innovation and had Universal healthcare..whoah

Originally posted by Xirik

If a person ran for Prime-Minister saying he was going to take away our health-care and take the US system he would get 0% of the vote.

Have fun with your tin foiled hat good sir.

 

This is a no-brainer. You see it as a good thing that your politicians win on who can divvy out the most "free health care." I posted something close to this awhile back. Once government runs the health care, no politician will dare try to get rid of it. They will just gradually ration more like Canada and the UK., You have a Nanny state. A lot in the US want the government to take care of them too. This stuff should be taught in high school economics. Welfare (free health care)  in the US used to be something you wanted to get off as soon as you could but is increasingly becoming a "right". Get ready for some hard truth when daddy war bucks government can't afford you anymore.

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Explain free market health care?  Are you going to start charging people for E.R. visits?  Not treat them until they pay?  If not, then you're providing socialized medicine.  Which is not free market health care.

If so, then you are severely crippling a large group of people who are unable to pay for health care.  Leading to backalley doctors, the spread of disease, child birth deaths, etc.  Not to mention the civil unrest that would occur.  There would be riots all over the place.

Take your choice.

 

Well, on the one hand the United States already does have socialized medicine for some sectors of the population.  It's called medicare and medicaid.

In addition, there is also a system in place for ER patients.  Treat them first, worry about renumeration second.  No one in the United States gets denied treatment who needs it.

But I love how people who have come to think that healthcare is a right of the country's citizens apparently think that all the healthcare workers across the country are going to continue to work in the industry for peanuts.  Doctors have to endure some of the most grueling education of any profession and to have to enter into the workforce with the massive amounts of debt, and they are going to continue to do it happily on a fraction of the salary that they now receive?

There's a much easier answer: Tort reform.  Democrats, turn against the trial lawyers and force them out of the back pocket of the Democratic Party.  Take the frivolous law suits out of the equation.  You would be amazed at how much healthcare costs would come down.

He didn't say "Why can't we keep healthcare like it is now."  He wanted to know why we couldn't have complete free market healthcare.

And I agree on tort reform.  It's ridiculous some of the things people sue for.  "This doctor gave me emotional damage by swabbing my ear too hard, I want 17 million dollars."

Originally posted by Vemoi

Originally posted by Xirik

If a person ran for Prime-Minister saying he was going to take away our health-care and take the US system he would get 0% of the vote.

Have fun with your tin foiled hat good sir.

 

 

This is a no-brainer. You see it as a good thing that your politicians win on who can divvy out the most "free health care." I posted something close to this awhile back. Once government runs the health care, no politician will dare try to get rid of it. They will just gradually ration more like Canada and the UK., You have a Nanny state. A lot in the US want the government to take care of them too. This stuff should be taught in high school economics. Welfare (free health care)  in the US used to be something you wanted to get off as soon as you could but is increasingly becoming a "right". Get ready for some hard truth when daddy war bucks government can't afford you anymore.

Thankfully Canada has a wealth of natural resources, So don't worry about us.

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Easy, it won't.  Socializing the costs of anything, always makes the costs go up.

It's not socializing anything. This is not single-payer health care.

Yes, OP, you know better than the CBO.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Explain free market health care?  Are you going to start charging people for E.R. visits?  Not treat them until they pay?  If not, then you're providing socialized medicine.  Which is not free market health care.

If so, then you are severely crippling a large group of people who are unable to pay for health care.  Leading to backalley doctors, the spread of disease, child birth deaths, etc.  Not to mention the civil unrest that would occur.  There would be riots all over the place.

Take your choice.

 

Well, on the one hand the United States already does have socialized medicine for some sectors of the population.  It's called medicare and medicaid.

In addition, there is also a system in place for ER patients.  Treat them first, worry about renumeration second.  No one in the United States gets denied treatment who needs it.

But I love how people who have come to think that healthcare is a right of the country's citizens apparently think that all the healthcare workers across the country are going to continue to work in the industry for peanuts.  Doctors have to endure some of the most grueling education of any profession and to have to enter into the workforce with the massive amounts of debt, and they are going to continue to do it happily on a fraction of the salary that they now receive?

There's a much easier answer: Tort reform.  Democrats, turn against the trial lawyers and force them out of the back pocket of the Democratic Party.  Take the frivolous law suits out of the equation.  You would be amazed at how much healthcare costs would come down.

 

He didn't say "Why can't we keep healthcare like it is now."  He wanted to know why we couldn't have complete free market healthcare.

 

And I agree on tort reform.  It's ridiculous some of the things people sue for.  "This doctor gave me emotional damage by swabbing my ear too hard, I want 17 million dollars."

Plaintiffs should not get punitive damages. Punitive damages should be awarded, but they should go to the government, not the plaintiff or plaintiffs lawyers.

Punitive damages are to punish the wrong doer, not to compensate the victim. The victim gets real damages for that, including pain and suffering, lost wages, medical bills.

Not exactly on topic however I do not want to make yet another healthcare thread.

So it seems now that the unions just got repaid for their bully tactics during the town halls.

So now it's what?

- Obama lied about having open debates and letting the people see what was going on during the table talks. Multiple times he said specifically talking about the healthcare bill that the doors would be open for CSPAN.

Nebraska state senator (Ben Nelson) got bribed for his vote. The state will never have to spend a dime of it's own money for the expanded medicaid.  

-Mary Landrieu got 100 million and 300 million inm money for her state in exchange for her vote. 

-Vermont and Massachusetts got something like 1.2 billion.

-The unions just got some sort of a sweet deal from Obama personally. Word is they are going to be exempt from the Cadillac tax now.

-This bill is not even going to come close to making sure that every American gets healthcare. Far from it.  How many million is it again? 

- How could i forget about tort refrom.

If the Dem's can pass this thing then so be it. However if the average person can't see that he is getting bent over then I don't know what's going on with them.  Are people ok about paying taxes for services that they won't ever be eligible for? Well that is unless you live in Nebraska or are you all ok with groups of people who should be taxed just like everyone else not being taxed?

I'm not saying that reform isn't need in some way. What I am saying is this bill has totally changed from what has been promised. So much so that they are having to bribe special interest and Congressmen / congresswomen to get it through. I truly hope the Democrat looses the senate race that's is going on right now.  This bill deserves to be file thrirteened and started over from scratch. 

Originally posted by Xirik

Originally posted by DeadDOG

all about health care in canada

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw

The Truth About Canada and there health care.

 

Hmm... one guy already showing bias in the first few seconds into the video or a Canadian who has gone through the health system a lot of times.

When I broke my arm =20min wait time

when I am am sick and go to my family doctor it takes 1h- 1h 1/2

My grandfather had brain cancer and and had surgery to take the cancer out. He wouldn't have been able to pay for that in the US.

Blood tests = 30mins.

 

 

I take my 85 year old dad to the hospital 2 or 3 times a week.
 

There is never any wait to speak of. The NHS works fine. The major difference between private and NHS is that in the NHS you don't get your own room and meals are not very tastey. Nursey brings you tea in a mug and is too old to fantasise about while in private hospitals you get coffee in a cup and saucer from a firm young thing.

Oh and I have to pay to park at the NHS.