SiCKO - Coming soon to an NHS near you?
Friday saw the release of Michael Moore's latest film, appropriately called SiCKO.
This latest offering from the maker of 'Bowling for Columbine' and 'Fahrenheit 9/11' now exposes the USA's totally-for-profit healthcare system. See for yourself, it's an eye-opener.
There are currently 50 million Americans who have no health insurance and consequently, if they develop a serious illness, they suffer and die untreated.
This system is totally controlled by numerous insurance companies who are motivated entirely by their quest for profits.
Could it be mere coincidence that the current proposal by the Assembly's Health Minister, Edwina Hart, to use the services of the UNUM Provident, that well known and controversial American insurance company, 'local agent', Prof. Mansel Aylward, as the overseer of Local Health Care reconfiguration?
In fact, Huw Lewis was so overly impressed by Prof. Aylward's 'official' CV that he went on to ask:
"Might we consider that Professor Aylward could move on, after this work, to oversee the overall reconfiguration of services throughout the whole trust area?"
Huw has attempted to dismiss my previously posted 'unofficial' CV of Aylward's activities as 'defamatory', but offers no response or rebuttal to my statements.
A three year investigation into UNUM Provident's activities in the USA has resulted in the following conclusions:
"The investigation concluded that the Company was engaged in widespread violations of state insurance regulations and in fraudulent denial practices. Those included using phony medical reports, policy misrepresentations, low-balling tactics and biased investigations as pretexts for cutting off legitimate claims of disabled, and often destitute, policyholders."
Given Aylward's previous history in the world of claims denials and the use of highly questionable medical reports in the DWP, and his intimate involvement with UNUM Provident, I regretfully foresee a radical change in services that will be made on mainly fiscal considerations.
He has successfully inculcated UNUM Provident's highly questionable methodology of claims denial into the DWP, with the result that many legitimate claimants have been wrongfully denied benefit, and I see no reason why Aylward's involvement in this proposed reconfiguration will bring anything of benefit to the public at large. Money talks.
Readers may have noted that there has been an increase in BUPA's advertising of late. Maybe they know something that we don't.
It is generally acknowledged that the UK is about ten years behind the USA. I would venture to suggest that the gap is closing.
Your patiently patient pal.
johnny.
Labels: Mansel Aylward, NHS, SiCKO, UNUM Provident
posted by johnny foreigner @ 01:39
14 Comments
14 Comments:
seeing as you are a big fan of the truth, have a look at this information
..According to the US Census Bureau, 17 million of those without health insurance live in households having over $50,000 in annual income. That's 38% of the uninsured in America.(2)
In fact, 9 million - 20% of the uninsured - reside in households pulling down more than $75K a year. (3)
..And then there are the young invincible. Over 18 million of the uninsured are people between the ages of 18 and 34. (4) They spend more than four times as much on alcohol, tobacco, entertainment and dining out as they do for out-of-pocket spending on health care.(5) They represent 40% of the uninsured in America.
...14 million people without health insurance are eligible for government health care programs like Medicaid and S-CHIP but choose not to enroll. (7) They represent %31 - nearly one third - of the uninsured in America.
...The U.S. has 12 million illegal immigrants who don't buy health insurance but still get health care.
...So, how many are truly uninsured? Around eight million. Just 18% of the 45 million that we hear about so often."
Now, where does that put your opinion now?
v:
Thanks for the breakdown on the amount of uninsured Americans and their various financial circumstances.
Unfortunately, you give no information as to why they have no insurance. Can they afford it, irrespective of their income? Could it be that they have heard of the many thousands of legitimate claims that have been denied by these insurance companies? Do they think that it's worth it?
The fact remains, many legitimate health insurance claimants are denied payment and consequently, treatment, as a result of questionable claims denial tactics which have been, and are being, addressed in the US Courts.
This quote tells the tale:
"The investigation concluded that the Company was engaged in widespread violations of state insurance regulations and in fraudulent denial practices. Those included using phony medical reports, policy misrepresentations, low-balling tactics and biased investigations as pretexts for cutting off legitimate claims of disabled, and often destitute, policyholders."
The point of my posting is to highlight the intimate connections that are being developed between the Assembly and an associate of an American insurance company that has been described as "an outlaw company that has operated in an unlawful manner".
Further, the same company has been accused of running "claims denial factories".
Michael Moore's film seeks, in part, to warn us of what may be to come.
He clearly points out that many people have claimed on their insurances and have been denied payment by these companies on the flimsiest of pretexts.
There is so much money floating around medical insurance in the USA that many companies write-in litigation costs into their projections and business plans, and they still make a fortune.
Our NHS, for all of its faults, must never be allowed to fall into the hands of private insurance companies whose only motive is profit and whose record on claims denial, speaks for itself. Please remember that claims denial equals denial of treatment.
I believe that the involvement of Prof. Aylward and UNUM Provident in anything to do with the NHS in Wales will be focussed more on fiscal matters than more effective treatment.
Mr. Moore's film, and this posting, is a wake-up call to us all.
Your painfully patient pal.
johnny.
I'm not one to normally point at stupid people, but you might be an exception!
Unfortunately, you give no information as to why they have no insurance. Can they afford it, irrespective of their income?
18 million don't think they need it - regardless of the cost.
17 million can afford to bypass the insurance and just pay the medical bill if and when it arrives.
Yes, your point is more about the non payment of insurance claims, but is that any different to the NHS system of rationing medical cover to only people who don't smoke, or drink and eat too much?
The cost of medical insurance is around the same as the average NI payment - yet the US have more doctors per head than we have in the UK.
The quality of service in the US is also much higher with something as simple as fixing a broken arm or leg only taking a few hours at most. In the UK its a whole day or more to sort out - as my mother found out only a few months ago!
We are also expected to be pleased to get this second rate service because its 'free'!
Something tells me this will mostly go over your head because it doesn't suit your agenda of the US being the big bad Yank!
‘No threat to key staff’
Oct 25 2007 by Claire Rees, Merthyr Express
HUW Lewis the Assembly member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney says there is no threat to front-line jobs at Prince Charles Hospital in the NHS shake-up.
Last week, we reported North Glamorgan and Pontypridd and Rhondda NHS trusts were dissolving to form a new Cwm Taf NHS Trust announced by Health minister Edwina Hart.
Merthyr-born professor Mansel Aylward, who still lives in Cefn Coed, was appointed to carry out an official review of the Gurnos hospital and told the Express he wanted proper consultation with the town.
While it is still unclear how services and jobs will be affected as a result of the move, many remain worried Prince Charles Hospital will be down-graded when the new trust takes effect next April.
But Huw Lewis, AM for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, said people need not fear job cuts or a loss to services.
“Part of the reason to merge is to streamline, and it’s a managerial merger,” he said.
“Budgets for the NHS are increasing so if anything there should be an increase in jobs and services.”
Prince Charles Hospital currently employs 2,890 people.
“There is no threat to NHS front-line jobs, in fact I don’t think it would be able to go ahead without an increase in jobs,” said Mr Lewis.
“But some senior managers will go.”
Mr Lewis added the new town hospital earmarked for Rhydycar to include a stroke rehabilitation centre and replace St Tydfil’s Hospital and The Hollies Centre, could be open by next year – with professor Aylward’s recommendation. He also attempted to allay fears Prince Charles Hospital could lose its Accident and Emergency department.
Mr Lewis said it would instead become the crucial emergency centre for the Heads of the Valleys as services decrease at Neville Hall Hospital in Abergavenny.
He said: “I’m confident we’ll have enhancement rather than down-grading.”
v:
Stupid eh?
Well, I don't normally respond to ignorant yahoos, such as you, but hey! I'll make an exception in your case. You're probably as stupid as me for responding at all.
You state that.....
"18 million don't think they need it - regardless of the cost.
17 million can afford to bypass the insurance and just pay the medical bill if and when it arrives."
The 17 million are presumably the ones with a $50,000 household income who you claim can afford not top have insurance and would just pay the bills as they occur.
Sorry to disappoint but that's about £25k for a household of how many? What are their domestic circumstances, their debts, their obligations? That's right.... you don't know.
How, therefore, are you able to make such generalised statements?
Your reliance on these bits and pieces of cut and paste really doesn't tell the whole story.
Anyway, this thread concerns the creeping privatisation within the NHS which is being ably assisted by the involvement of these controversial and questionable insurance company methods.
You say.....
"The cost of medical insurance is around the same as the average NI payment - yet the US have more doctors per head than we have in the UK."
Basic USA Medical insurance is around $500 per month for a family of four. Most National Insurance contributions are around 6%. So if we assume two parents with two children on say, £12,500 ($25k) per annum each parent = £25k (around $50,000) the UK NI contribution is around £1,500 , as opposed the USA's $6,000 (£3k). About double the cost. Of course it must be remembered that this UK contribution also funds Unemployment and disability benefits.
It should be noted that USA Insurance premiums are not based on income, consequently the less well-off can only afford the cheapest option, or, go without.
Presumably you would wish the same for us.
You also say....
"The quality of service in the US is also much higher with something as simple as fixing a broken arm or leg only taking a few hours at most. In the UK its a whole day or more to sort out - as my mother found out only a few months ago!"
Please don't show your complete lack of knowledge on these matters. "Simple things" like broken arms and legs do not get fixed in a few hours anywhere. They take weeks of careful care and attention. The standard of care however is about equal and the results are roughly the same.
I'm sorry to hear of your Mother's broken arm or leg and that it took a whole day to "sort out". Were you in a hurry or something?
I expect that it heartens your Mum to know that her offspring dismisses her obviously uncomfortable injury as nothing more than "something simple". Kindly convey to her my good wishes for a speedy recovery.
The NHS, despite its shortcomings, which are generally as a result of political interference, is a National Treasure that should be cherished by all and not left to insurance companies who have profit as a their primary purpose.
Our NHS is coming up to its 60th. birthday soon and has, I think, a record to be proud of, as it still treats allcomers at the point of need without favour.
.....and very grateful I am too.
Your patched-up pal.
johnny.
Mam:
Thanks for the report from the Merthyr Express, I'm an Echo man myself.
I notice that Huw Lewis is 'bigging up' the proposals for all he's worth, and all without the slightest shred of evidence to support him. I wish I had his belief.
His claim that just "some senior managers will go" is hardly believable as I have yet to know of a NHS 'restructuring' that has not involved service cuts of one sort or another.
I am prepared to keep an open mind on this but fear the worst.
I fail to see what qualification or experience that Mansel Aylward has in NHS restructuring. His expertise is more concerned with thinking up ways to deny disability benefits or health insurance claims.
He has been more concerned with saving money for his masters with his highly questionable ideas regarding the rehabilitation of disabled claimants.
He has no record of success in NHS restructuring and I firmly believe that this particular involvement with the WAG has a more fiscal purpose. I await his reports with bated breath.
I am more concerned with his associations with UNUM Provident, whose exploits have been previously described here.
A Google search for *Mansel Aylward UNUM* will provide much information regarding Mansel's activities. His appearances before Select Committees are most enlightening.
Please be assured that he does not enjoy the support of mainstream medicine in a number of areas and takes the view that his doctors (DWP or Private) are more qualified than others and therefore are better able to cast opinion.
Here's an interesting question that has been asked many times, by many people, but, to date, has remained unanswered.
"Please provide your observations on governmental association with UNUM Provident, who have been credibly described as an "outlaw company who have operated in an unlawful fashion for years."
I am personally aware that this same question has been asked by a number of MPs, of a number of Secretaries of State and, as yet, not one has answered the question as posed.
Maybe Huw Lewis would like to answer, although I doubt that he visits such a place as this.
Maybe readers would care to ask their AMs or MPs the self same question, but please don't hold your breaths waiting for a reply. It appears to be an awkward question that just won't go away!
Just like me.
Your persitently patient pal.
johnny.
I'm sorry Michael Moore is just a liar, a modern-day Goebbels ... it's a shame but as soon as you go quoting this evil scumbag I just turn-off, maybe you have a good point but there you go, turned-off, sick to death of this fat American's lies.
its all spin
pch will be rubble ithin 5 years ( well more than it is now) and secondary health care will be provided at llantristant a true hole with a mint in it.
primary care will be non existant (and my job with it)
Dowlais
that is one scary scenario - is this the view from inside the NHS
Nonny:
Whilst you may disagree with Michael Moore's view of things, if you want to call him a liar, at least provide some cogent response to support your standpoint.
Please provide us with some examples of his 'lies'.
From what I have seen of his work, he certainly knows how to ask the questions.
In SiCKO he is merely attempting to point out the lack of public healthcare in the USA, and has since attempted to point out to the UK the clear value of our NHS.
In this posting I am attempting to show that the ethos of the NHS is under attack from those that would wish more and more of its activities to be provided by the private sector.
The involvement of Mansel Aylward in the reconfiguration of NHS services in Wales fills me with much doubt, and begs the question as to why he has been particularly chosen when has no experience or expertise in this area.
I am somewhat concerned that his intimate involvement with the private medical insurance industry may be the primary reason for that choice.
Your puzzled pal.
johnny.
Mr. Twp:
I do hope that your predictions are completely wrong. Unfortunately, NHS restructuring frequently involves reductions in services, greater distances for patients to travel and a general attitude of 'cost before care'.
Please keep your words of insightful comment coming, and if you see any examples of the 'Aylward Method' being proposed, please let us all know.
Mam:
It is frequently the case, that the realities of NHS restructuring, as illustrated by such 'insiders' as our esteemed friend Mr Twp, become public knowledge only because of such as Mr. Twp.
You may have noted that any positive comment about these reconfigurations generally comes from the proposers and their stooges, and there are more than enough of these stooges on the blogmosphere.
I'll watch for the proposals with interest.
Your proclamatory pal.
johnny
Don't you love the power of an argument you know in your heart that you have lost?
The average income for a family in the UK is actually £33k
Anyway, rather than listen to comments from UK people who know nothing, why not read the comments of a real American and then reassess your opinion?
Or do you see changing your mind as a weakness?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2007/09/04/no_health_care
Nonny @ 23:01.
Thanks for your comment.
I really can't see what average salaries have got to do with this thread?
The point that I am struggling to make is that there appears to be a continuous creeping privatisation within the NHS which involves massive amounts of Public Funds being paid to private companies whose primary reason for existence is profit.
These private companies would cease to exist without the NHS and I find it difficult to support the notion that Health Care in the USA is superior to that of the UK.
I acknowledge that for elective procedures, the services sold within the UK by the private sector can speed up matters, but the quality of treatment is no better than that available in the NHS, notwithstanding the waiting lists. Those lists could be so easily removed by adequate funding.
On the other hand it should also be acknowledged that the private sector are also highly selective with their elective procedures and are quite grateful for the NHS when things go wrong.
When the 'chips are down' and life is at risk it would be difficult to find a finer service than the NHS.
I speak from vast personal experience, as a victim of serious injuries, having gratefully received more medical procedures than I could ever have funded privately.
My case, at the time, was used by my consultant as an audit model to facilitate the calculation of the absolute and total costs for my treatment from the date of my injuries until the date of my discharge some years later. I was astounded at the total cost as it was more than twelve times my annual salary at the time. Now you may understand my gratitude and wish to maintain such facility.
I have attempted to access the link that you have provided and it seems to take me to some immigration matters???? Please provide a clearer link to the matter that you would wish me to see.
I certainly haven't lost this argument and most certainly intend to listen to UK comment. We are not so stupid as some may think.
I still maintain that the invovlement of Mansel Aylward in any NHS reconfiguration will certainly not be based on his experience or expertise on these matters and will mainly revolve around a reduction of funding and service. Further, his involvement with UNUM, given their record, gives me no assurance that there is any benefit for the public to be gained from this association. I would dearly love to be proved to be wrong.
Your pal.
johnny.
Congrats for the Blog!
Talking about the U.S. and Britain, could you please comment about the Segolene Royal affair at Harvard regarding her reported support for the independence of the US territory of Porto Rico?
http://5-yearslater.com/index.php/2008/03/14/2118-segolene-royal-favorable-a-l-independance-de-porto-rico
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9gol%C3%A8ne_Royal#L.27affair:_Vive_le_Porto_Rico_Libre
If she can say this about Porto Rico, she may consider saying the same about Wales, right!?
Thanks!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home