Well, I’ve currently got tickets for a month, accommodation arranged for that time, and travel insurance (including unlimited medical). I certainly wouldn’t want to spend one day uninsured over there either.

Offtopic for this thread I know, but the city I’m going to is Eugene, Oregon. I’ve visited there a few times, and it seems nearly as good to live in as Dunedin. It also seems to be one of the more enlightened states in some respects. There’s a difference between visiting and living there though. I also plan to stay for a maximum of three years.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Hmph. I’d start sorting out who you’re going to go with NOW, there’s an awful lot choice and you wouldnt even want to spend one day uninsured over there.

Not many people point to the US as the best example of anything, yeah, though it’s so diverse in the sense that states seem to have so much power it’s almost not worth generalising about the US, i’ve found. An enjoyable place though, would certainly like to live in a few cities that i’ve been to – possibly need a bit more moolah though.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Thanks for that. It is an odd situation, especially for an IT company. The company is very small (I’ve been consulting for them for a few years), but it’s got people in more than one state, which apparently makes providing a health plan difficult for them.

The risks of me going over seem to be at their end – it’s not a huge problem for me if things don’t work out – I can just come back here (and keep consulting). I am aware though that there are lots of ways we do things better here than there (like the health system) that I’m going to have to adapt to. I’m sure there’s things that they do better too – I can’t think of any offhand though, except that the city I’m going to actually has a good public transport system (I’m planning on not having a car over there).

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Ah. Quite unusual for a company not to have a health plan(!) I understand. Good on you for all that though.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

StephenR: I did talk with my employer – he thinks getting health insurance won’t be a problem, but the company doesn’t itself have a health plan for employees. He also knows (I’ve told him) that if I can’t get insurance, or find any other real show-stopper over there, then I’m flying back to New Zealand (and they are paying).

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Roy, wouldn’t that have been a good question to ask your employer before accepting the job?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Just to add a personal note to that (am I allowed to do that in a blog comment?), I’m about to go to the USA for work, and one of the big question marks for me is whether a 40+ year old with asthma and interesting family medical history, who has never had health insurance before, will be able to get insured, and how big a bite is it going to take out of my income? I’m shifting from a country that used to have one of the best health systems in the western world, to the country with one of the worst.

If that falls over, then my stay in the USA won’t be for very long, and will help me appreciate what we have here.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Yeah thanks, you two and BJ have cleared that up for me – what i suspected anyway. Wonder if/when National will attempt to give tax breaks for those with private insurance…

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

StephenR wrote “Perhaps i’m missing something (seriously), but if it’s so horrible, why do over a million NZers have private health insurance of some kind>?”

It’s not the fact of personally having health insurance that’s a bad thing. The bad thing is the existence of a system (in the US) in which you’re stuffed if you can’t get health insurance.

I don’t think that’s the case in New Zealand, and I hope it’s not, because I don’t have health insurance and can’t get it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

StephenR wrote “Perhaps i’m missing something (seriously), but if it’s so horrible, why do over a million NZers have private health insurance of some kind>?”

What you are missing is that health insurance here and health insurance in the USA are two different beasts.

Health insurance here is something you get if you want a little extra safety net above the public system: it means you will get more prompt treatment (avoid the waiting lists), and may be a bit more comfortable. It also covers some of the cracks in the public system, for people who are not quite ill enough to get into the public system, or people who would have a poorer prognosis if treatment is delayed. In general though, if you get ill, the public system will suffice (although it has gone downhill in that regard the last while). Ideally (better public system), insurance here should be unnecessary, but in practice it does have some value. The rise of insurance here can be seen as a not very good sign of issues with the public system.

In the States, it is the only way (unless you are old, extremely poor or very rich) of getting heath care. If you don’t have it and get sick, you are expected to pay for it yourself, and can be in real trouble. Also, because of it’s more central role, it costs a _lot_ more. The insurance companies don’t just get a cut of the cream – they get a cut of the whole pie, and your treatment is approved (or not) by organizations that have a primary goal of making money.

Like or Dislike: 2  0 (+2)

Kahikatea says: what about people who are obese due to side-effects of anti-psychotic medications?

A painful question for me, as I have a family member with exactly that problem.

But this is a good example of exactly what I meant when I was saying that mental health patients need more money spent on them. The weight gain is one of the prices they pay for the illness they suffer, which (as far as I can tell) is a result of nothing they have done intentionally.

By contrast, most other obese patients (although not all) can make a decision to eat less, and thereby improve their health and reduce medical costs.

My point being of course – that we should focus our health spending on those who suffer illness and/or accident that they have no means to avoid.

When the amount of money available to treat people decreases, we have to spend less, and at such times it becomes more important to prioritise spending.

At the risk of sounding harsh, I would rather we spent more on health, less on education, and nothing on refugees.

Like or Dislike: 0  1 (-1)

FreeAdverts,
Rather, it should be government subsidised medications that have been shown to be highly efficacious rather than any particular subtype. If it is from a pharmaceutical company or from a plant is besides the point.
Pharmaceutical companies make large profits but those profits are justified by the massive investments required and the massive gambles they take everytie they attempt to develop a drug. Just because they dont give it out freely hardly makes them forces of darkness. Pharmaceuticals are often very effective.
Natural treatments can be very effective too. The difference is that natural treatments do so by coincidence while pharmaceuticals are targeted specifically to have effect. Both should be subject to exactly the same legislation and both should only be allowed to claim that which has been shown. Both should be subsidised if they are proven efficacious.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Greengeek wrote: “If $150 million is going to be shaved off the budget then I would prefer to see obese people locked out from publicly funded care, rather than mentally ill people locked out from adequate care and/or housing.”

what about people who are obese due to side-effects of anti-psychotic medications?

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Only $150m?

That is only three days worth of borrowing from our children to pay for the health care of us today.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

NZer’s should have the right to choose whether their ailments be attended to by a GOVT SUBSIDISED GP & pharmaceuticals or by a GOVT SUBSIDISED alternative therapist & vitamins/herbs!

& NOT THE FORMER ONLY!!!

The PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES & those that they have in their back pockets are laughing all the way to the bank!!!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Bliss says: It is not a sin to be rich. It is a sin to be poor. It is the sin of the rich.

Its not always the sin of the rich.

If that is true you would “even out” wealth by selling off everything you own and sending the money to Africans.

Or maybe you have some justification for having more possessions than Africans??

What you really need to ask is this: “Is Blisses wealth keeping Africans poor?”.

Only you can answer that, but I’m guessing your own wealth has nothing to do with the poverty of Africa.

Or even the poverty of any New Zealander who happens to have less than yourself.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

BJ:

“As for alternatives, I would settle for allowing me to buy anything proven not to be harmful…”

Ok, but that lets out asprin, paracetamol, all common vaccines, and anything that’s been through a normal phase-4 (release to the public and discover the rare side-effects) clinical trial; and that’s without engaging with philosophical issues of the and-you-can’t-prove-a-negative kind.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

StephenR said:
“Oh for some tort reform”.

You mean like ACC, where doctors only face sanctions if they are actually below par, rather than being forced to get insurance so they can pay compensation when the calculated risks all doctors have to take turns into a medical misadventure?

Let’s hope National get voted out in the next election before they can completely gut ACC.

Like or Dislike: 2  0 (+2)

Heh nice ‘try’ anyway.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

StephenR

Can’t have that! Gawd… half the folks elected to office are – Lawyers.

People “skilled in circumventing the law”

Trained to ignore facts and argue what they are paid to argue.

———–
I used to argue for this reason (when I was younger and more idealistic) that the US needed an amendment clarifying the separation of powers, one which made lawyers eligible to serve ONLY in elective positions in the Judiciary or the Executive, and never in the Legislative branches except as advisors to legislators.

Recognizing that this will happen when hell is a hockey rink, I have since moved on.

respectfully

BJ

Like or Dislike: 1  1 (0)