US Healthcare, Yikes!

[The Monsignor]

I dunno how effective the system is:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...aping-NHS.html

It implies to me that there is a decent amount of dissatisfaction with NHS - I have an option in my country - I can find another doctor, even with restrictive insurance.

The Canadian healthcare system does fund sex-change surgeries.
http://health.lifestyle.yahoo.ca/cha...hannel_id=1004

There are horror stories about how people have had to wait for serious surgery (there's a story around about one woman now has a plastic bag where her bladder once was because there was a lack of surgical facilities to perform a simple surgery) People with chronic illness have to wait longer, and end up in the emergency room more often in canada than in other countries
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/...onditions.html

As for 'free' healthcare - this is the biggest misnomer of them all - Your NHS physicians don't work for free, hospitals and clinics don't build themselves, and all this 'free' healthcare comes out in the form of taxes on you and your employer. You're not only paying for your healthcare - you're paying for those that use healthcare more often due to their own personal habits - drug addiction, poor lifestyle choices, etc.

Hospitals will not refuse to treat you simply because you can't pay - they bill you and hound you to collect later, but you will get treated. There are free clinics for the truly indigent, and state programs (vouchers here in Washington) to cover healthcare expenses. For children under 18, all states have a way to cover health expenses if their parents are unable to cover it. (unable, not unwilling)

Again - working for Starbucks part-time I could afford healthcare for me and my kids. There are plenty of options, and recession in the U.S. doesn't equal the unemployment that other countries have (if we have 10% unemployment, that's considered a national crisis - we're at 5% or less now - in a recession)

[MeTurk]

Originally Posted by The Monsignor

I dunno how effective the system is:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...aping-NHS.html

It implies to me that there is a decent amount of dissatisfaction with NHS - I have an option in my country - I can find another doctor, even with restrictive insurance.

The Canadian healthcare system does fund sex-change surgeries.
http://health.lifestyle.yahoo.ca/cha...hannel_id=1004

There are horror stories about how people have had to wait for serious surgery (there's a story around about one woman now has a plastic bag where her bladder once was because there was a lack of surgical facilities to perform a simple surgery) People with chronic illness have to wait longer, and end up in the emergency room more often in canada than in other countries
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/...onditions.html

Is that any worse than us hearing a horror storey of a hard working American dieing of something curable because he couldn't afford the surgery/medication? At least you have a chance here. You also have a choice. I have health insurance and can go to one of the many private hospitals.

There are allot of problems with a national health service, we are trying to manage the health of a nation. Really it's all down to mismanagement and bureaucracy but it can be done, Nordic countries in Europe have excellent health services Ireland's is ruined by the Muppet's we have in charge of this country. That probably all sounds like reasons to go against a national health service but these are all problems that can be ironed out by one good forward thinking government.

As for 'free' healthcare - this is the biggest misnomer of them all - Your NHS physicians don't work for free, hospitals and clinics don't build themselves, and all this 'free' healthcare comes out in the form of taxes on you and your employer. You're not only paying for your healthcare - you're paying for those that use healthcare more often due to their own personal habits - drug addiction, poor lifestyle choices, etc.

I don't mind at all paying for everyone in this country. All kinds of people make all kinds of mistakes and poor lifestyle choices. I still wouldn't deny them their life or health because of those choices. The whole point of society and civilisation in my opinion is to look out for each other and take care of those that can't take care of themselves. I'd rather help the worst in society hoping they'd "see the light" rather than let any one die on the streets.

[expatben]

I will also point out that you do have a choice in Doctor. I myself have changed Doctors before and my roommate who lived in the same area even changed practices when he moved in.
I don't say health care is free-universal? Socialized? Sure but of course its not free nothing is-it comes out of taxes much like most things.
As MeTurk said its better than hearing the stories of the down and outs with no option.

[The Monsignor]

I'm not finding any stories of Americans dying for lack of ability to pay.

It's a myth that seems to be really heavily played overseas that the American health care system refuses life-saving treatments due to inability to pay. It's against the law for a physician to refuse to treat a patient on the basis of financial gain.

Scandinavian countries pay almost 70% of their income in taxes, and if you think you have muppets in charge of your health care system - think what the rocket scientists in my government can do to it...

Social security (the nation's Old age, survivors and disability plan) is so horribly mismanaged that the average return on investment (meaning how much benefit that you will be able to cash out after paying into it for your entire working life) is a net loss of over 60%!!!

There has been a push to privatize that system, and allow you to invest your money where you wish - thus actually getting more back from your investment (like a regular pension plan would have to do). Social security routinely gets raped for funds to pay for other projects, and the money is never replaced.

I pay far less in health insurance and medical expenses than I would under a government plan. I get far more for my money.

Like I say, it sounds like a great idea, but there isn't really a working system out there that doesn't sap resources and isn't a huge public burden.

[NitemareHippieGirl]

Originally Posted by The Monsignor

Yes, paying 300 bucks for a doctor to remove your tonsils sucks, but frankly, it's a fraction of the cost and though inconvenient, you can afford it. (at minimum wage, it's what? one week's pay?)

Yikes! One weeks pay? Seriously? Back in the day when I was working 50+ hours a week at minimum wage I still was getting $400 paychecks every two weeks. Today, working every single day for $8 my paychecks every two weeks are barely over $200. This surgery is going to cost me at least two months pay once all the bills come through!

[The Monsignor]

2 months pay - what the diamond brokers suggest a guy should spend on an engagement ring.

Nobody's arguing that it sucks, but think about having that paycheck go from 500 every two weeks to 250 every two weeks because of taxes...

Again, we still have that $500,000 per household of government obligations already promised - we can't fund that, but we'll have to at some point. I can't in good conscience vote to add anything more to that bill! Where do we get that money from?

[MeTurk]

Originally Posted by The Monsignor

2 months pay - what the diamond brokers suggest a guy should spend on an engagement ring.

No body's arguing that it sucks, but think about having that paycheck go from 500 every two weeks to 250 every two weeks because of taxes...

Again, we still have that $500,000 per household of government obligations already promised - we can't fund that, but we'll have to at some point. I can't in good conscience vote to add anything more to that bill! Where do we get that money from?

We do have high taxes fair enough, I think it's around 41%, I'm not sure all our taxes are paid by our employer so we never have to worry about it.

For that money though you get, health insurance (throughout Europe, I'm covered in all European countries) including mental health care, I never have to spend more than €90 a month on medications. social welfare, affordable housing. Child support, every child in the state gets money every week weather they need it or not, plus an additional €1000 a year for some reason. Free education right up to 3rd level, grants plus rent allowance for mature students (over 23). There's a load more, I think it's a good a fair deal and I don't have to worry about any of these things I'm taken care of once I do my hours at work.

[maracle]

An american in the 25% tax bracket also has 41% taxes, interestingly enough (on the last dollar anyway). 25% income tax, 12.4% social security, 2.9% Medicare, and 0.8% unemployment = 41.1%.

[The Monsignor]

Taxes are also borne by the employers, one of the things about doing business that discourages expansion in many industrialized nations - excess regulation (anyone who has ever tried to build a house knows what that's like)

Again though, how do we fund this universal healthcare plan when we can't even fund the plans we already have in effect?

[The Monsignor]

Just in case you needed another example of where socialized medicine has gone wrong -
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_New...-year-old/7535

[d_fresh]

I enjoy my universal health care in Canada. Its really not as bad as it's detractors make it sound...just like the US system apparently isn't as bad as it sounds either.

[Sijuki]

I will have to agree that I can't agree with National Healthcare. I've seen the way our gov't runs things. I've been behind the seens at the VA Hospitals. If this is how we treat our war veterans, I don't really want to see how we would treat the average person off the street. Having services tied into the gov't is a disasterous idea. That means you could have Congress then decide to budget down health services and there goes a few hundred doctors. There goes up waiting times. Just like they've done with the VA for so many years.

I.E. Here in Detroit they built a "Brand New, State of the Art" Hospital for their patients, within 3 years, half the hospital is closed down due to budget cuts. Many patients are sent across state to Grand Rapids. All Psych is done outpatient with a max 14 day in hospital visit, then it's back to the streets for you. I don't know about you, but I don't want to have to travel 200 miles just to go see a doctor... I kinda like going 5 miles to see my doctor. It's not like they closed the hospital cause there wasn't demand, it was cause they wanted to trim the budget.

I don't trust my gov't. If I could take back control of most things I would. I don't expect to receive Social Security, I expect I am paying in so my parents will get it. I save my own retirement. I pay my own health insurance cause I can't trust my gov't to fund it correctly. At least here you will always get service, you will just get billed for it. As long as you make payments they can't harass you, they will try. But tell them to screw off. Companies will try to intimidate you, but you just have to give the finger.

I know the grass looks greener, but you have to remember who is responsible for the care. Quite frankly I am sick of paying taxes and I know the douchebags in my gov't won't do things correctly. I mean they've screwed most everything else up, why trust them with my health?

[MeTurk]

I will have to agree that I can't agree with National Healthcare. I've seen the way our gov't runs things. I've been behind the seens at the VA Hospitals. If this is how we treat our war veterans, I don't really want to see how we would treat the average person off the street. Having services tied into the gov't is a disasterous idea. That means you could have Congress then decide to budget down health services and there goes a few hundred doctors. There goes up waiting times. Just like they've done with the VA for so many years.

Just because you have a state run health service doesn't mean private hospitals would disappear. In fact I think it would improve the private sector, they now have to seriously look at how their going to add value or drop prices. The state wouldn't allow for overpricing on anything so these massive hospital bills would be a thing of the past.

I know the grass looks greener, but you have to remember who is responsible for the care.

The grass is greener. I've been in hospital once or twice. I did have to wait a long time (it was nothing serious though) but I got everything I needed. The service was great. I actually liked the rush rush nature of the public system. I was in and out in the space of 2 hours. 15 minute wait.

I much rather having my health care service in the hands of elected members of the public that can be held responsible rather than with big corporations that only care about money.

The bottom line for me is, everyone's' covered. Rich, poor, drug dealer, priest, my hole family, that bastard I don't like. Everyone. The state see's you as a person no mater what you've done. Everyone has a right to life that includes the people I don't like.

[expatben]

All I can say is I am thankful for free health care so I can have my surgery (I'm OK its just an abscess) in a couple of weeks-couldn't afford it otherwise.

[xanthuos]

Originally Posted by The Monsignor

Scandinavian countries pay almost 70% of their income in taxes, and if you think you have muppets in charge of your health care system - think what the rocket scientists in my government can do to it...

Will, I've thoroughly enjoyed your points in this thread.

In the end, it is simply a difference between views on the role of government and the role of the individual.

I, and many Americans, believe that the government should ONLY be responsible for the things the average person CANNOT provide for themselves. Such things include a national defense, roads, etc. It doesn't include retirement, healthcare, etc.

On the other hand, it seems to me that European countries and other nations that share European-style views on government like Canada & Australia believe that the government should provide much more, at a greater overall cost to the population (especially motivated, successful citizens) through taxes.

If you are in a country that has socialized medicine (I try not to use "universal" or "free" because they are very incorrect labels) and you like paying 40-50-70% of your income in taxes (that is, if you are working) to provide for that - more power to you! That is how your nation has chosen to handle their affairs.

I'm in the United States, and at this time, we DO have government healthcare programs for the elderly (Medicare) & for people of low-income (Medicaid). After all, approximately 45% of ALL medical expenditures in the US in 2004 were through Medicare and Medicaid! Otherwise, if you're able-bodied, you're expected to provide for yourself! Is that too much to ask? If you're unemployed, you can collect unemployment. If you're disabled, you can collect SSI disability payments from Social Security and are likely covered for medical services under Medicaid.

Overall, though, I do not believe that I should pay to provide something for you that you are able to provide yourself. I am a staunch conservative (read: libertarian, not republican) when it comes to governmental matters. Yes, there are millions of Americans without health insurance. I am one of them. A huge percentage of these uninsured people CAN, in fact, afford insurance. However, because they mismanage their money (huge houses, 6 TVs, air conditioning, electric dryers, 2 cars & no public transit usage, eating out frequently) - simply living beyond their means - they don't have any money left in the "family budget" for that pesky $156 bill for health insurance. I'm sorry, but I don't have sympathy for that. Again, I take this opportunity to remind detractors that the lowest income people in this country have government health insurance available to them, especially for children. I've seen the lifestyle of a number of Europeans - they live "frugally" compared to almost everyone I know in the US... In all the apartments & houses I was in when I visited Finland for a month, only ONE had an electric dryer. Everyone else used a clothes drying rack. Most people used public transit & even if they had a car, they drove it sparingly because of the cost of gas. My friends grocery shopped on a needed basis and didn't waste much or buy many processed & prepared foods.

All in all, it depends on your view of the role of government. I want the government to play as LITTLE of a role in my life as possible.

[NitemareHippieGirl]

^ I have to say that while I do understand your opinion (don't necessarily agree) that I'm sick of people saying that people with no healthcare are "living beyond their means" with "6 tvs" and a "huge house." The people who I know without healthcare are definitly not living the high life. Some of these people also make the argument that some would rather pay for cable tv then get themselves healthcare, yet they don't have healthcare because they can't afford it.

All I'm saying is it's unfair to say that people who are lacking in certain priveleges aren't working hard enough or don't know how to manage their money. There is a big problem in this country of squeezing out the middle class, especially the lower middle class when it comes to certain things that can actually help someone provide themselves with a better life. It's easy to say that those who aren't living "the American dream" are stupid and lazy, but the truth is most of those people work multiple jobs and are unable to get ahead. Especially with the economy in the shape it is now. I really doubt that the majority of the millions of Americans without health insurance aren't driving one of their six cars to eat a steak dinner every night. They're probably like most people my age who work multiple jobs, rarely take a day off, and still can't afford to pay for their insurance. Did you ever see that clip of Bush talking to a woman who said she worked multiple jobs and his response was, "that's something that is uniquely American." Many people work themselves to death and still have trouble making it through the month with all bills payed.

So yes, I agree with your idea that this battle is really between two different views of the role of government. Though I don't agree with your view on the role of government I definitely understand why some are so attracted to the idea. I just don't think it's valid or helpful to cast off millions of hard-working people just because they don't enjoy the same privelages you might enjoy. It's easy to look down on others without understanding the type of obstacles that might be facing them. Just because certain opportunites were open to you doesn't mean they're open to everyone.

[TheJake]

Good things from both sides. Well done one and all.

For my two bits, thankfully the only disease I have was taken over by the US Government a long time ago to administer drugs for so I get my checkups for free! (Tuberculosis!)


This thread I feel is getting a bit too political though so I am closing it.
Party on elsewhere amigos!