Crosswords3 mins ago
The Bald Facts Of The Us Health System
21 Answers
http://
Good on him I say - cant see Cameron or Blair doing this!
What I don't understand is why this group of secret service agents is doing this to raise funds for the boy's treatment - Aren't children coverred, wouldn't the secret service proviide healthcare insurance for the famillies of thier agents or would Lukemia be excluded?
Good on him I say - cant see Cameron or Blair doing this!
What I don't understand is why this group of secret service agents is doing this to raise funds for the boy's treatment - Aren't children coverred, wouldn't the secret service proviide healthcare insurance for the famillies of thier agents or would Lukemia be excluded?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
perhaps their cover just wasn't enough?
I thought Bush snr was a bit of a prat back in the day, but I've come to appreciate him more and more... not least in comparison with his son.
Actually fought in the war, and tried to build international support for his Kuwait war rather than just charging into the mire regardless.
I thought Bush snr was a bit of a prat back in the day, but I've come to appreciate him more and more... not least in comparison with his son.
Actually fought in the war, and tried to build international support for his Kuwait war rather than just charging into the mire regardless.
Medical insurance claims are often limited. Treatment for children isn't always covered by the NHS.
http://
http://
I think the reason behind Bush getting his head shaved is that he wanted to look like his body guards. Otherwise he would be an easy target for any assasin being only person with hair among all of those baldies. Otherwise He does not give a damn about a child as he was behind the killings of many children in few countries invaded by USA.........................But then again they were not American or Israeli children.
Most American sources of the story say " to assist with medical bills"
http://
Naomi - that treatment for childhood neuroblastoma ( a monoclonal antibody) is still undergoing trials.
The Macmillan website on neuroblastoma has this to say about it.....
"It is not yet a standard treatment for people with neuroblastoma because it has very unpleasant side effects. The benefits still need to be fully proven and the best way to administer it needs to be confirmed. Patients with high-risk neuroblastoma may be able to receive anti-GD2 in the UK if they are being treated within the European high-risk clinical trial."
All conventional treatment for children with leukaemia in the UK is fully funded by the NHS.
http://
Naomi - that treatment for childhood neuroblastoma ( a monoclonal antibody) is still undergoing trials.
The Macmillan website on neuroblastoma has this to say about it.....
"It is not yet a standard treatment for people with neuroblastoma because it has very unpleasant side effects. The benefits still need to be fully proven and the best way to administer it needs to be confirmed. Patients with high-risk neuroblastoma may be able to receive anti-GD2 in the UK if they are being treated within the European high-risk clinical trial."
All conventional treatment for children with leukaemia in the UK is fully funded by the NHS.
dave...good question. I met an American businessman on the plane about one year ago and his main concern was "who was going to pay" and the answer of course was the taxpayer.
He also pointed out that many Americans were scared of having care that was highlighted on the TV concerning Mid Staffs hospital and being "thrown on the scrap heap if over 70 years of age."
U.S healthcare is of a very high standard dave...the contentious issue is who pays.
He also pointed out that many Americans were scared of having care that was highlighted on the TV concerning Mid Staffs hospital and being "thrown on the scrap heap if over 70 years of age."
U.S healthcare is of a very high standard dave...the contentious issue is who pays.
Dave50, I did not say it was bad I said it was uncivilised. Obama care came in for criticism for 2 main reasons. 1) Communal health care = communism to the US. 2) some choose not to have insurance because they cannot afford it and don't want to be forced to have it even if the suppliers are forced to give it. In the US there is an entire industry, hundreds of companies, who's primary reason for existing is to enable insurers to deny health claims. if someone actually claims on their health insurance their premium will rocket or they may even be denied cover. Sorry, no1 nation in many ways perhaps, pretty close to rock bottom in this area. Now generally I'm not a fan of Michael Moore but watch his film "Sicko" - a true expose of the US barbarity on health care.
-- answer removed --
As with most insurance coverage here in the U.S., the plan the Secret Service uses is a choice... The U.S. Government (as the employer) pays roughly 75% of the premium and several insurance companies offer coverage which the individual employee can select. The choices are fairly similar in both coverages and cost.
In a high cost illness,(such as this little boy is facing) the patient (read policy holder) usually pays the first part of "catastrophic" illness coverage which is most likely around $5,000 (US) and the insurance coverage covers most of the rest... which can be hundreds of thousands of dollars. There are additional "sundry" costs which the policy holder typically pays as well, such as copay on prescription drugs.
These are the costs that President Bush is assisting the other employees to collect to help out their coworker...
As I recall, the only country President George H.W. Bush invaded (with a large coallition of allies) was Kuwait (and, peripherally, Iraq)... after it had been invaded by a 'brother' Muslim nation, Iraq, no?
"... On January 17, 1991, American and allied forces began launching air attacks on Iraqi forces and on February 24 the ground campaign began. By February 27, the coalition had achieved their stated mission of ejecting the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. Exactly 100 hundred hours after the ground battle had begun, the allies suspended all offensive operations..."
In a high cost illness,(such as this little boy is facing) the patient (read policy holder) usually pays the first part of "catastrophic" illness coverage which is most likely around $5,000 (US) and the insurance coverage covers most of the rest... which can be hundreds of thousands of dollars. There are additional "sundry" costs which the policy holder typically pays as well, such as copay on prescription drugs.
These are the costs that President Bush is assisting the other employees to collect to help out their coworker...
As I recall, the only country President George H.W. Bush invaded (with a large coallition of allies) was Kuwait (and, peripherally, Iraq)... after it had been invaded by a 'brother' Muslim nation, Iraq, no?
"... On January 17, 1991, American and allied forces began launching air attacks on Iraqi forces and on February 24 the ground campaign began. By February 27, the coalition had achieved their stated mission of ejecting the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. Exactly 100 hundred hours after the ground battle had begun, the allies suspended all offensive operations..."
-- answer removed --
Read this for some unpleasant facts on US health care
http://
Even those in a job that includes health care find it often has limits , long term illness is often excluded, and almost all schemes end when you retire and need it most.
That link was from 2009 it has got a lot worse since then.
http://
Even those in a job that includes health care find it often has limits , long term illness is often excluded, and almost all schemes end when you retire and need it most.
That link was from 2009 it has got a lot worse since then.
Excellent and insightful question Dave... fact is, everyone receives health care... some better, some worse (but isn't that a fact in the UK as well?). No one is turned away.
As to who pays?... in most cases the 'big, bad hospitals' absorb the costs, thereby raising the costs to everyone else... but so be it.
Additionally, each hospital and some clinics have emergency rooms, which are required by Federal law to treat, at no cost, anyone that walks into one... including subsequent hospitalization, if required.
Fact is, the UK system, which had been the 'Gold Standard' (at least so viewed here in the US) of government run health systems is now experiencing (at least according to news reports) the necessity of limiting access due to the costs. This has been the major (but not the only) concern about the imminent imposition (against over 65% of public sentiment) of Obamacare... (the name given to the government administered system due to kick in here in 2014).
Numerous segments of the plan have already been delayed significantly due, primarily to the unforseen consequences, including enormous increases in costs.
There's just no imaginable way for a government health care program to operate without significantly reducing service and/or availabiltiy... unless the country is driven into bankruptcy in doing so... In my opinion.
As to who pays?... in most cases the 'big, bad hospitals' absorb the costs, thereby raising the costs to everyone else... but so be it.
Additionally, each hospital and some clinics have emergency rooms, which are required by Federal law to treat, at no cost, anyone that walks into one... including subsequent hospitalization, if required.
Fact is, the UK system, which had been the 'Gold Standard' (at least so viewed here in the US) of government run health systems is now experiencing (at least according to news reports) the necessity of limiting access due to the costs. This has been the major (but not the only) concern about the imminent imposition (against over 65% of public sentiment) of Obamacare... (the name given to the government administered system due to kick in here in 2014).
Numerous segments of the plan have already been delayed significantly due, primarily to the unforseen consequences, including enormous increases in costs.
There's just no imaginable way for a government health care program to operate without significantly reducing service and/or availabiltiy... unless the country is driven into bankruptcy in doing so... In my opinion.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.