Free health care

[Dan558]

Why are so many people against it? To me it's just common sense. More so then say car insurance. It's quite dumb that Car insurance is a must but free health care is so debated. I'm not stupid enough to crash my car and I'm safe enough to stay away from other stupid drivers. I'm not saying accidents don't happen but I bet my car insurance will never pay off. Health care on the other hand seems like a natural choice b/c general accidents ARE bound to happen and when they do I never wanna be stuck with some rediculus bill for it.

I understand it would mean a bit more taxes but so does "mandatory" car insurance I just don't see why the government requires one but not the other?

Sure I bet all the rich people don't mind it because they can just push all the other people out of the way and pay for thier health care first. "Every man is created equal"? Appearently not when it comes to health care...

I dunno if this is considered "Intellectual Discussion" or not, I don't care if it gets moved.

[Walter Sobchak]

I hope it doesn't get moved. Intellectual Discussion has become a wasteland.

I am for it, but I understand why some are against. Incentives are the best way to get someone moving. That is why you get better service from a waitress than a cashier, and better service from a Best Buy than the DMV. Their worry is that with doctors making a flat rate, they will not work as hard.

Britain has a comprehensive incentive system in place for their physicians. They get bonuses for getting patients to lose weight and stop smoking. American doctors like their patients to be fat smokers because more health problems means they keep coming back.

When I read "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" I see universal health care.

[Koda]

This isn't the first time Universal Health Care has been brought up. Unfortunately, our great Government just can't seem to get their 'stuff' together and make it work. It's funny how there are other countries, many of them, that already have it and it seems to be working for them.

I would be concerned about the quality of care that I would be getting. Even now, those who don't have any type of insurance are treated differently than those that do have coverage. It isn't right, it isn't fair, but it is and has been happening for years. So many get turned away, which is suppose to be illegal, and instead of getting the top notch treatment, they are sent to a County or General Hospital that is cheaper and will take anyone regardless of their ability to pay.

I do have medical insurance now through my employer, and when I receive a claim form showing what the doctor or hospital billed them, and what they actually paid and WAS accepted by the medical provider, it's sickening. Anyone that doesn't have insurance is going to pay almost double of what an insured person's insurance company pays.

Back in 1992, during his campaign, Bill Clinton brought up the idea of a universal health plan for Americans. Below is some of what he tried, but failed to convence the other Rich Government workers to go along with, and find a resonable plan.


Back in 1993 when Bill Clinton was in office, he first presented the 'Clinton health care plan.

The Clinton health plan required each US citizen and permanent resident alien to become enrolled in a qualified health plan and forbade their disenrollment until covered by another plan. It listed minimum coverages and maximum annual out-of-pocket expenses for each plan. It proposed the establishment of corporate "regional alliances" of health providers to be subject to a fee-for-service schedule. People below a certain set income level were to pay nothing. The act listed funding to be sent to the states for the administration of this plan, beginning at $4.5 billion in 1993 and reaching $38.3 billion in 2003.

Once in office, Bill Clinton quickly set up the Task Force on National Health Care Reform, headed by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, to come up with a comprehensive plan to provide universal health care for all Americans, which was to be a cornerstone of the administration's first-term agenda. A major health care speech was delivered by Clinton to a joint session of Congress on September 22, 1993,[8] with an overwhelmingly positive response.[9][10] In that speech, President Clinton explained the problem as follows:

“ Millions of Americans are just a pink slip away from losing their health insurance, and one serious illness away from losing all their savings. Millions more are locked into the jobs they have now just because they or someone in their family has once been sick and they have what is called the preexisting condition. And on any given day, over 37 million Americans -- most of them working people and their little children -- have no health insurance at all. And in spite of all this, our medical bills are growing at over twice the rate of inflation, and the United States spends over a third more of its income on health care than any other nation on Earth. ”

Hillary Clinton's leading role in this project was unprecedented for a presidential spouse.[11][12] This unusual decision by President Clinton to put his wife in charge of the project has been attributed to several factors, including the President's desire to emphasize his personal commitment to the enterprise.[12]


It would be great if everyone in our country could get the same treatment as everyone else, and it not cost the tax payer's a small fortune to do so. I know I don't want to be taxed more than what I am paying for my health insurance now. Honestly, I think they need to come up with something that is optional for all. If you already have insurance and don't want to participate, then you will not be taxed for it, nor do you have to take it unless you want to at a later date. If you have no insurance coverage at all, have a plan that is just as good as the one's that are not participating.

The medical enviroment is getting more questionable every year. I wonder what percentage of people really go in to medicine because they really want to make a difference and help people, as opposed to those out to make the big bucks eventually.
It isn't going to happen overnight unless they had rich parents that paid the medical school bills and have no loans to repay.

[Sean]

I remember talking to Djinn about how I felt like shit for about a week, his comment was "go to the doctor"

My reply? "I'm broke dude, I can't afford that"

"Wtf do you mean you can't afford it?"

"America doesn't have universal health care, we have to pay every time we go to a doctor, or pay for insurance to not pay to go to a doctor"

"That's ****ing stupid"


I'm all for it, and people need to stop being blind to the higher taxes problem. The government doesn't need to raise taxes significantly to do the things it needs to do, they only need to go up a small margin and the stupid tax breaks for people in higher brackets that Bush put in needs to be revoked.

This country isn't impossible to fix; it just takes the morons who live here to vote in someone who actually can. Sadly it also takes someone to be a presidential candidate who can. GG on that, I guess.

The major problem here is that our country has more bottom feeders than most other countries as developed as ours that have this sort of system in place. Our welfare system it's self is already ****ed because of all the pieces of shit who keep popping out kids they can't afford and our government going "OH IT'S OKAY, HERE'S TAX MONEYS TO HELP YOU!"

This country is so focused on helping people who can't help themselves they're making it harder on the middle class to STAY middle class. WTB China's forced population please. Or just leave the pieces of shit to die and stop giving them all the ****ing SSI money.


Idiots, the lot of them. I honestly want to move to Canada. A not French part of it.

[Pete]

There are problems with universal health care though. Sometimes problems are more serious than what a general practitioner can help with, and so finding a specialist may just put you on a waiting list for a while. Now, if you have a problem that can potentially kill you, you'll still be stuck on that waiting list.

Granted, the same thing can happen if you're uninsured, but there are different types of insurance for low-income families.

While universal health care is theoretically a good idea, I like the freedom of having choices for my doctors and prescription plans. I also hate the idea of paying for everyone else. Why should I pay for the fillet mignon when I only ordered the salad? I really hate the idea of just being told who my doctor is, rather than being thrown to the closest doctor near my house.

Universal health care also makes your problems my problems, and leads to the creation of "nanny states." I shouldn't give a shit if you smoke or if you want to do risky things. But because I'm going to be paying the bill, I'm gonna be more likely to support gov't bans on things that may cause health risks. The more money in my pocket, the happier I am. On top of that, the most governments are in bed with drug companies, with huge payoffs for both. "Your clinics use our drugs and we'll throw your gov't a kickback from the profit" and the like.

[Sasquatch]

There are explanations for American healthcare being so "expensive". First, the expense is widely exaggerated. Second, Americans get some of the best healthcare in the world -- which is why people from other countries (including, but not limited to, Canada, with a socialized healthcare system) flood into the United States every year for medical practices they can't get in their home countries. And third -- and probably most important -- United States medicine Research and Development is huge. Americans pay full-price for medicines and such because it's American companies and corporations that discover or create those medicines. They're sold all over the world cheap, but Americans pay for their R&D.

Americans don't have to worry about waiting years and years to see a specialist. Americans don't have to pull their own teeth out because they can't see a dentist within two years. Reasonably-sized American hospitals have more beds and more MRI machines than there are in many Canadian provinces.

And it's not just the "rich" that get medical care. I don't know why wealth envy is such a big issue lately, but health insurance is NOT a budget-buster. Anybody with a mediocre job and a sense of priority can get health insurance. And for those that don't have health insurance, if they need emergency medical care, they get it anyway. It's illegal for anybody to be refused emergency medical care, regardless of financial situation.

Why are so many people against it?

Because we don't want to pay more so that others don't have to pay.

It's quite dumb that Car insurance is a must but free health care is so debated.

Not only is car insurance not "a must" in all states, most places the only "must" part of car insurance is liability insurance, which covers the damage you cause. Besides that, the taxpayers don't provide "insurance" for those who refuse to make it a high enough priority to afford.

I'm not stupid enough to crash my car and I'm safe enough to stay away from other stupid drivers. I'm not saying accidents don't happen but I bet my car insurance will never pay off. Health care on the other hand seems like a natural choice b/c general accidents ARE bound to happen and when they do I never wanna be stuck with some rediculus bill for it.

Which is more likely, getting into a car accident or having a condition so severe you need inpatient hospital care?

I understand it would mean a bit more taxes but so does "mandatory" car insurance I just don't see why the government requires one but not the other?

Like I said, car insurance isn't "mandatory" which means the government doesn't require it (except in some states, and usually liability only). And it'd be quite a bit in taxes to provide a service that's adequate at best and mediocre at average.

Their worry is that with doctors making a flat rate, they will not work as hard.

Exactly. That's why there was a "brain drain" when Britain moved to socialized systems.

When I read "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" I see universal health care.

If you see socialized healthcare, you're blind. The government cannot restrict life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness -- they don't have to provide it.

Unfortunately, our great Government just can't seem to get their 'stuff' together and make it work. It's funny how there are other countries, many of them, that already have it and it seems to be working for them.

That must be why hospitals near the northern border of the United States constantly have Canadians coming in. The truth is that Canada's healthcare system just plain sucks. Because it's socialized.

Even now, those who don't have any type of insurance are treated differently than those that do have coverage.

Any evidence for this? Doctors usually have absolutely no involvement in the financial dealings of the patient, and for just that reason -- obviously, somebody would be less inclined to give it their all if they know they won't be paid for it.

So many get turned away, which is suppose to be illegal, and instead of getting the top notch treatment, they are sent to a County or General Hospital that is cheaper and will take anyone regardless of their ability to pay.

So wait ... you're arguing to support government-controlled healthcare, and you're using as an example the idea that those without insurance have to get poor government-run healthcare? If socialized healthcare is just fine, why is there a problem with non-insured patients being treated at hospitals run by the government?

Honestly, I think they need to come up with something that is optional for all. If you already have insurance and don't want to participate, then you will not be taxed for it, nor do you have to take it unless you want to at a later date.

How do you think that would be financed? If people want it, they'll be taxed as much as their insurance bills would be, and if they don't want it, they pay nothing? What's the point? Why not just force everybody to go through a regular health insurance program? The entire idea of socialized anything is that the people who don't cost as much will foot the bill for the people that cost more. Using the same logic, you could make welfare optional -- if you don't want it, don't pay, and if you need it, you'll pay for it. It would have no funding.

The government doesn't need to raise taxes significantly to do the things it needs to do, they only need to go up a small margin and the stupid tax breaks for people in higher brackets that Bush put in needs to be revoked.

Does healthcare cost a lot of money, or does it not? If it does, it WILL require quite a bit more in taxes. If it doesn't, there's no argument for socialized healthcare to begin with.

And the "tax breaks for people in higher brackets", in other words, is letting people keep the money they earn. There's absolutely no reason to take no taxes from you and more than half of my income. And if your argument is "because somebody else can afford it", you need to do a little research on capitalism.

This country isn't impossible to fix; it just takes the morons who live here to vote in someone who actually can.

Actually, it takes the morons who live here to stop fabricating things to "fix". A sure way for a politician to get elected is to boost up a fake "crisis" or "danger", then vow to protext the voters from it and accuse his opponent of ignoring it. That's exactly how Obama is doing so well in the polls. Morons.

The major problem here is that our country has more bottom feeders than most other countries as developed as ours that have this sort of system in place. Our welfare system it's self is already ****ed because of all the pieces of shit who keep popping out kids they can't afford and our government going "OH IT'S OKAY, HERE'S TAX MONEYS TO HELP YOU!"

And why does America have to many bottomfeeders? Because we have morons who not just allow it, but actually endorse it. You don't have to work, the "government" will support you. You don't have to be responsible enough to prioritize your budget to be able to afford health insurance, the "government" will provide it for you.

Or just leave the pieces of shit to die and stop giving them all the ****ing SSI money.

NOW we're talking. Because honestly, if somebody can't make it in America, where the hell are they gonna go? Almost makes me want to support Sam Kinneson's "execute the homeless" program.

Idiots, the lot of them. I honestly want to move to Canada. A not French part of it.

Every time I hear somebody say they want to move out of the United States, I can't help but offer to help pack. I'll even bring boxes for you.

[Furore]

Which is more likely, getting into a car accident or having a condition so severe you need inpatient hospital care?

Doesn't that really depend on how good or sucky you are at driving? And then there's that many car accidents also have the unfortunate side detail of people either carking it or being sent to a hospital for treatment.

I don't know how well it'd work in the US, but in Australia we have a public health system and it's amazing. Many can go to the dentist free or cheaper on a regular basis, and if your appendix goes or something you can get treated free!! I don't know nor care how our system rates internationally, but I do know I love not having to worry about whatever accident/incident could land me in hospital. There's too many things that could happen that you have no control of. They mightn't happen, but then... they might.

[Dan558]

Wow I know I asked for some of these answers but sasquatch couldn't have answered them in a more arrogant way. Shooting down everyones opinions from atop his throne of "knowledge". Seriously I have never heard such an Uber-republican response to the subject. I could hear the Guns firing and people being oppressed from here. Seriously do you go to sleep at night listening to stories of how Bush is some super world cop saving the universe from terrorists?

First I'll admit right away I was not at all well informed enough to make the car insurance comparison. I was actually thinking about Liability car insurance... I can admit faults

The truth is that Canada's health care system just plain sucks.

who are you to say that? Do you live there? Just because some rich people who live in Canada DO come to the states dosn't make it supremely better. There are always extremes that choose to do things there way. Its not like they are ALL flooding the borders filling up the parking lots in hordes miles from the door. Then your point may be valid. Just like you deny that there is any evidence for people being treated differently without any sort of insurance you just can't state this as a fact.

Which is more likely, getting into a car accident or having a condition so severe you need inpatient hospital care?

Doctors appointments for sure, I'm surely a lot less likely to be blindsided from some idiot racing on the street then contracting a family illness like cancer which has no relation to my social or economical standing. There are a lot of people in the same boat there, how many people have a history of some sort of genetic illness do you know? and how many people do you know get in car crashes past a simple fender bender where it can be fixed with ONE easy relatively low payment? In my personal experience I would guess that only about 15% of people I know have gotten more then a dent or scratch on their car and I would say at least 50% have a history of genetic illness.

Almost makes me want to support Sam Kinneson's "execute the homeless" program.

Every time I hear somebody say they want to move out of the United States, I can't help but offer to help pack. I'll even bring boxes for you.

Actually, it takes the morons who live here to stop fabricating things to "fix".
And the "tax breaks for people in higher brackets", in other words, is letting people keep the money they earn. There's absolutely no reason to take no taxes from you and more than half of my income. And if your argument is "because somebody else can afford it", you need to do a little research on capitalism.

these are the kinda quotes that make people morally opposed to republicans rather then take their plans seriously. Seriously, we're not in the stone age, you are the people perpetuating the "every-man for himself" so brutally its why America has such a growing depression rate (IMO). I certainly agree that noone should be held by the hand and guided and praised for every little thing but when it comes to being able to do things FOR people I'm not so heartless as to morally oppose them being taken care of. I may not like certain scum bags and lowlifes but when it come to the most basic health care to provide LIFE, I do care, if they choose to take it. As for "morons" fabricating things to fix, it's quite hard to believe that you think this is a 100% perfect country. I'm not saying I don't think it's great but I wouldn't be so quick to judge, that is the "moron" thing to do.

I guess its an assumption that you are a republican but you sure fit the stereotype. I just figured a different "democratic" point of view should be offered to at least try and balance out your opinions.

ha, I'm probably gonna get it for this...

[OceanEyes28]

Careful, Dan. Stick to arguing Sasquatch's points, not arguing over what kind of person he is.

I am so torn over this issue. On one hand, I think I'd be happy to pay a little extra to help someone get a necessary heart surgery, or an organ transplant, or treatment for cancer. Or hell, even to get poor Johnny in for a dermatologist appointment. I don't mind that thought at all. But what I do mind is the thought of paying for some 800 pound yogurt person. When it gets to the point where you can't move on your own anymore... But then, most countries don't seem to have the obesity epidemic quite as badly as we do.

Anyway. Having help paying for medical expenses would be super nice, but there are some aspects of the idea that still give me pause.

[Sasquatch]

Doesn't that really depend on how good or sucky you are at driving? And then there's that many car accidents also have the unfortunate side detail of people either carking it or being sent to a hospital for treatment.

What's "carking"? Really, that's not a word I'm familiar with -- does it mean dying? But anyway. The good thing about car insurance is that it's easy to get plans that include hospital care needed as a result of an accident. The insurance I have on my truck includes that -- if I get into an accident, whether it's my fault or not, and I end up in a hospital, I have to pay like $500 out of the first $100,000, or more or less depending on the type of care. But cheap for me. And it's because I've prioritized my finances to be able to afford car insurance, and extra insurance on that.

I don't know how well it'd work in the US, but in Australia we have a public health system and it's amazing. Many can go to the dentist free or cheaper on a regular basis, and if your appendix goes or something you can get treated free!!

It's no more "free" than it would be with private health care and insurance. You still pay for it, out of every paycheck, whether you need it or not.

I don't know nor care how our system rates internationally, but I do know I love not having to worry about whatever accident/incident could land me in hospital. There's too many things that could happen that you have no control of. They mightn't happen, but then... they might.

I doubt you've been through healthcare systems out of Australia, so naturally, you might like it because it's all you know. But why would you support having money taken out of every paycheck to provide you healthcare over voluntarily paying who you want to for insurance to provide you healthcare?

Wow I know I asked for some of these answers but sasquatch couldn't have answered them in a more arrogant way.

You might think so, but oh, you'd be surprised. I'll ignore the rest of the ignorant insults in your first paragraph -- but for the record, I can be much, much more of a prick.

who are you to say that? Do you live there?

Do I have to live in Canada to know how bad their healthcare system sucks?

Just because some rich people who live in Canada DO come to the states dosn't make it supremely better.

The people that can afford it come to the United States for their healthcare, and it's not because care in the United States is better?

Just like you deny that there is any evidence for people being treated differently without any sort of insurance you just can't state this as a fact.

You know what, you're right. Why do I think I can point things out without supporting them, then ask for support for somebody else's assertions? So I said Canadian healthcare sucks, right?

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Don't Use Canada for Health-Care Model

Canada's Medical Nightmare - by Robert J. Cihak, M.D. - The Heartland Institute

Canadian health care and atrial septal defect

http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/J...ealthCare.html

The Top Ten Things People Believe About Canadian Health Care, But Shouldn't
(Biased source, but they cite their info. Probably the most informative, too -- I'd recommend this one first.)

2001-01-25 Press Release - OMA challenges group’s claims that Canadian health care lacks serious problems

Canadian Wait Times Alliance Urges Speed in Reducing Health Care Wait Times in Canada

CANADIAN HEALTH SYSTEM FACING COST PROBLEMS

CBC News | Problems & Cures

Anyway. Now that that's taken care of -- where's some evidence that people without health insurance are "treated differently" than those with health insurance?

In my personal experience I would guess that only about 15% of people I know have gotten more then a dent or scratch on their car and I would say at least 50% have a history of genetic illness.

Considering the fact that there are about a million and a half new cases of cancer every year and more than six million car accidents, you're either exaggerating or considering "my great-uncle got lung cancer" as a "history of genetic illness". (I know that there are more chronic illnesses than cancer, but still.)

I certainly agree that noone should be held by the hand and guided and praised for every little thing but when it comes to being able to do things FOR people I'm not so heartless as to morally oppose them being taken care of.

I'm not opposed at all to them "being taken care of". I'm just opposed to having money forcibly taken from me to support others, whether they can't work or refuse to work. I give to charity willingly, I just get pissed when my money is taken for the same cause without my choice or consent.

As for "morons" fabricating things to fix, it's quite hard to believe that you think this is a 100% perfect country.

I never said that there aren't things in this country to fix. Trust me, I have plenty of problems with this country and its government. I just said that a good way to get elected is to make up some sort of "crisis", like health care, and promise to solve it. The gullible populace will buy into it, and all of the sudden you have victims, bad guys, and a good guy.

I guess its an assumption that you are a republican but you sure fit the stereotype.

I've also been told I remind somebody of a character on "Starship Troopers". But I wasn't in "Starship Troopers". Be careful with stereotypes and assumptions -- you know what happens and you assume things.

I just figured a different "democratic" point of view should be offered to at least try and balance out your opinions.

I've looked into "democratic" points of view. I've just decided on mine.

But what I do mind is the thought of paying for some 800 pound yogurt person. When it gets to the point where you can't move on your own anymore...

That's another big issue. If you're a healthy 20-year-old and I'm an 80-year-old that's drank my liver away and smoked like a chimney for the last sixty years, and ate my way into diabetes and a wheelchair because I'm too fat to walk, why should you have to pay for my medical treatment?

[Dan558]

Whatever, you can have your opinion and care for people when you think it's necessary and I'll stick to my doings. It's good that you actually done some research and gave those points. Theres no doubt that there are articles on the web that also say the US's healthcare sucks I just don't care enough at the moment to research a lot into that but heres just 1 so I don't have to defend that later:
More Bad Grades for U.S. Healthcare - On Health and Money (usnews.com)

I don't care enough to argue with you anymore. otherwise i'll probably continue to steer the thread towards a politics arguement... I'm not gonna change my opinion and neither are you. I'm not running for congress or anything and arguing on a final fantasy forum isn't gonna change anything.

As for assumptions I'm surely allowed to make them and I'm not an evil person or stupid because of them. Looking at all the evidence you present (Guns in your avatar, views on health care, owning a truck, even your completely shaved head) that I would never get along with you and I'm entitled to that opinion. And don't jump on me for that because i believe noone could honestly say they have never judged someone solely on looks or what they have heard, can you say you've never looked at anyone and went "eww" or something of that connotation and never got to know them afterwards? If so you're a saint. Also I guess I just know smart drivers and sick people... you apparently know the opposite (seeing how you jumped to statistics to "prove" otherwise), because those estimates still stand and when I say family illness i mean direct family (brothers, sisters, parents and SOME grandparents) with a medical illness that requires at least a considerable amount of treatment at some point.

Anyways, sorry for the ignorant and arrogant statements about you, I take things to personal sometimes...

oddly enough, my future career will be in bioengineering related to the medical field...of coarse that's not set in stone.

[Zell Dincht]

Now, if you have a problem that can potentially kill you, you'll still be stuck on that waiting list.

Personally, I think that a socialized health care plan for the U.S. would not be in the best interests for the majority of Americans. My dad's side of the fam all live in Ontario or Quebec. Really... Canadian health care is not that great of a system. Sure it is funded by tax money, so everyone who pays taxes (and some who don't) can get treatment whenever you need it... but the lists are sooo long.

It basically works like this. Say I have a simple bacterial infection, that really all that I need is a prescription of antibiotics and maybe something additional. Simple eh? No. When you go into one of the public clinics you fill out a preliminary questionnaire that asks you your symptoms, why you are there, what you need. etc.etc So you give the admins this form and they then put you in a que based on your treatment priority. So if there are people there who are in need of medical attention faster than you... you are screwed.

I'm not sure what solution would be good for the U.S. but for now... well. *shrugs*

I know in Oregon for several years now we have a "sorta" socialized health care option that the State grants to low income families and those who are disabled or elderly. But Oregon is a very different state comparatively from the rest of the U.S. We have an odd government.

[Furore]

What's "carking"? Really, that's not a word I'm familiar with -- does it mean dying?

No. It means being magically spirited away to the afterlife by leprechauns. But in all honesty, yeah, it means dying as any search engine could tell you. Though since you went on to state what it meant anyways, I'm going to hazard a guess you figured it out as you read it (or used an aforementioned search engine) and though it'd be a good way to begin your post.

But anyway. The good thing about car insurance is that it's easy to get plans that include hospital care needed as a result of an accident. The insurance I have on my truck includes that -- if I get into an accident, whether it's my fault or not, and I end up in a hospital, I have to pay like $500 out of the first $100,000, or more or less depending on the type of care. But cheap for me. And it's because I've prioritized my finances to be able to afford car insurance, and extra insurance on that.

You don't have these large-ass ambulance fees, hospital administration charges and crap like that on top of that $500? Because they can end up costing a small fortune themselves, and I know here I haven't had to pay to any hospital, and I've been to them a few times. The longest I've ever been in hospital was around a week after my appendix decided to die on me. I not only didn't pay a cent, but got some first class care and some decent food. What's cheaper than nothing barring a little tax money?

It's no more "free" than it would be with private health care and insurance. You still pay for it, out of every paycheck, whether you need it or not.

True enough, but you're not really paying that much. I mean, here it's one of the tiny things. I don't even think it's seen in a paycheck as it's incorporated into the other taxes we pay. Most people have to go to the hospital once or twice in their lifetime, don't they? Prices being what they are, it's definetely a good deal to me.

I doubt you've been through healthcare systems out of Australia, so naturally, you might like it because it's all you know. But why would you support having money taken out of every paycheck to provide you healthcare over voluntarily paying who you want to for insurance to provide you healthcare?

I've seen them on television shows and the like. And contrary to what you might believe, our hospitals here are first class. Not only are you well looked after, you're given several nicely sized meals (and by that I mean larger than you might expect at some restaurants), it's good food (made by great chefs, they even pretty it up with flowers they've checked are edible) and there's television/radio and often video/dvd playing capabilities. And yeah, we have hospitals willing to do all those cosmetic procedures as well. Most get them done here, or research getting it done in some Asian countries offering the procedure for much lower prices. I rarely hear of Australians going to US hospitals, unless they're holidaying there or need to see a rarer specialist.

I'd support having trace amounts of money taken so that there's no worries if something happens somewhere down the line. And on top of that, it does me good to know that others won't be ****ed over just because they can't afford to have some operation/surgery/whatever done. So what if private would mean I could choose my doctor or something? The public system is damn fine.

[Sasquatch]

Somebody opposing me gives me a source that tells me U.S. healthcare sucks because it's not socialized enough, then tells me they stereotyped me because I have a "completely shaved head" (while the only picture of me available is from five years ago, with my then-two-year-old niece, and I had hair, just like I still do)? Interesting. Anyway.

No. It means being magically spirited away to the afterlife by leprechauns. But in all honesty, yeah, it means dying as any search engine could tell you.

Hey now, I looked it up at dictionary.com and it said it had something to do with a worry. I assumed it was kind of a local slang, but thought I figured it out from the context. Just wasn't sure.

You don't have these large-ass ambulance fees, hospital administration charges and crap like that on top of that $500?

Oh, hell yeah we do. But the insurance covers that. If I wrap my truck around a tree and take a $1000 ambulance ride, $400 hospital admittance, and $10,000 hospital stay, I pay $500.

Now, I don't know the extent of your insurance knowledge, so please don't think I'm patronizing or belittling you, but I'll explain how American insurance works. I suppose this is for anybody who doesn't know much about insurance. For everything, there's a "premium" and a "deductible". The premium is what you pay monthly. My auto insurance premium is about $450 every six months. (Alright, sometimes premiums are every six months for auto insurance. Usually they're every month for health insurance.) For auto insurance, your premium may go down with a Drivers' Education class, a clean driving record, or even good grades, if you're in school. But it may go up, too, if you get tickets for speeding or driving recklessly, or get into an accident or two. It's also slightly less for female drivers and slightly more for male drivers -- because female drivers get into more accidents, but when men wreck a car, they do it right the first time . And it's slightly more for younger people, too -- once you get to 25, it goes down a bit. That's the only birthday to look forward to after 21. But other than the premium, there's the deductible -- that's how much you pay when something happens. And it's yearly. If I hit a dear and do $500 worth of damage, I have to pay out-of-pocket to have it fixed. I just need to make a claim to let them know how much I paid and for what. If I hit another dear that year, the insurance covers the repairs. If I completely screw up my truck, the insurance company will either pay to have it fixed (minus $500 that I have to pay) or say it's totalled and pay what it was worth (minus $500).

It's the same with health insurance, prettymuch, except they also have a "copay" (or co-pay, whichever). Premiums every month, deductibles if something big happens, and copays for little stuff. If I fall off a roof and spend a week in the hospital, I only have to spend two or three hundred bucks for a deductible. But if I get sick and go in for a checkup? Ten dollar copay. Prescriptions are a three dollar copay per month's supply.

Basically, there's no reason somebody can't afford health insurance in the U.S. If they work, prioritize, and decently budget their money, it's not difficult at all.

What's cheaper than nothing barring a little tax money?

You're still having money taken out of your paycheck, which isn't much different than taking more of your paycheck and writing a check.

True enough, but you're not really paying that much. I mean, here it's one of the tiny things. I don't even think it's seen in a paycheck as it's incorporated into the other taxes we pay. Most people have to go to the hospital once or twice in their lifetime, don't they? Prices being what they are, it's definetely a good deal to me.

How do you know it's a good deal when you don't know how much you're spending on it?

I've seen them on television shows and the like. And contrary to what you might believe, our hospitals here are first class.

If your hospitals are first-class, you might offset Canadian hospitals.

And yeah, we have hospitals willing to do all those cosmetic procedures as well.

That's the thing about cosmetic procedures in the U.S. -- most insurance won't cover them. If somebody's getting a facelift or a tummy tuck or something, nine times out of ten they pay for it themselves. Unless it's something that affects them in some other way -- for example, I've had a few moles removed. Blue Cross/Blue Shield initially said it was a cosmetic procedure, but I told them why I was having them removed -- this one rubs on my football pads, this one rubs on my collar, this one rubs on my dog tags, this one gets hit when I get a haircut, etc., and they come open and bleed and might get infected. It's a health risk. They'll also remove moles if they're big, discolored, or weird shaped, because those could be malignant.

I'd support having trace amounts of money taken so that there's no worries if something happens somewhere down the line.

Then why not paying the same "trace amounts" so you can have some choice in the matter?

[Furore]

Oh, hell yeah we do. But the insurance covers that. If I wrap my truck around a tree and take a $1000 ambulance ride, $400 hospital admittance, and $10,000 hospital stay, I pay $500.

Not bad. But the way it is here, you don't work, you don't pay a cent. You do work, you pay a few cents a week/fortnight depending on how your job pays. I'd be likely to pay anything in the vicinity of nothing up to a few dollars.

Not to say paying private isn't too much worse here. I could be wrong, but I think most plans offer a rebate of some kind, especially if you haven't made a claim. Either way you are paying more for the privilege of a little more choice.

Now, I don't know the extent of your insurance knowledge, so please don't think I'm patronizing or belittling you, but I'll explain how American insurance works.

No, no, no. I understand perfectly. It works pretty much the same here. And don't mind me gutting the explanation out, if I quoted it this post might be twice the size.

Basically, there's no reason somebody can't afford health insurance in the U.S. If they work, prioritize, and decently budget their money, it's not difficult at all.

And what if they cannot find employment? I just looked at the statistics, and it's at 5.7% as of a August 01, 2008 update at the Bureau of Labour Statistics (Current Population Survey(CPS)). It's not really fair to say they can work to afford private health insurance when some can't even get a job. Just over one in twenty people not working is pretty bad in terms of people possibly not being able to afford private health cover. Sure, many might be bums, too rich to work or whatever, but considering the US population is 304,943,000 at the 2008 estimate, that's around 17,381,751 people, no? (Just a simple 304,943,000 x 5.7% so you know). I highly doubt all of them fit into the rich/lazy sections, and they could be denied things those who can find work might take for granted.

You're still having money taken out of your paycheck, which isn't much different than taking more of your paycheck and writing a check.

It is in terms of how much I'm paying. Decent sized portions for private cover or miniscule amounts for public cover.

How do you know it's a good deal when you don't know how much you're spending on it?

That's exactly how I know. When I'm barely earning chicken feed and can't notice money being taken, I know it's bugger all. When I'm paying enough to buy myself something nice, I begin to wonder if it's worth it when I see a cheap high quality alternative.

If your hospitals are first-class, you might offset Canadian hospitals.That's the thing about cosmetic procedures in the U.S. -- most insurance won't cover them. If somebody's getting a facelift or a tummy tuck or something, nine times out of ten they pay for it themselves. Unless it's something that affects them in some other way -- for example, I've had a few moles removed. Blue Cross/Blue Shield initially said it was a cosmetic procedure, but I told them why I was having them removed -- this one rubs on my football pads, this one rubs on my collar, this one rubs on my dog tags, this one gets hit when I get a haircut, etc., and they come open and bleed and might get infected. It's a health risk. They'll also remove moles if they're big, discolored, or weird shaped, because those could be malignant.

Oh, our insurance don't cover them neither, unless they can be shown to be a health risk or something as yours does. What I was trying to indicate is that our hospitals do it all too. And as they pamper you like a little bitch here while still making sure hygiene rules are followed and the like, it is VERY high quality hospital care. Public seems to be pretty much the same, only you pick a doctor and may have to wait a little for anything non life-threatening. Things like getting an artificial shoulder replaced and the like for example. Though I've heard horrific stories of some people waiting years on public lists, I don't think I know many who've waited all that long at all.

Then why not paying the same "trace amounts" so you can have some choice in the matter?

Because my definition of trace amounts don't cover anything noticable. ^^

[Govinda]

It can and does work. I live in the UK.

Our country is full of immigrants, immgrants who breed; also, junkies, fat people, and smokers dying of emphysema. Now, under new British work law, all of the above who don't work will be forced to, as street-cleaners and the like, and they will pay tax as I do towards the running of the NHS.

Even if they didn't, I wouldn't care. Maybe you're all unsure of it because you're not used to it. I have never had to consider paying for care in my life, and when I'm old, I won't have to pay for my retirement home either (this, sadly, only applies in Scotland at the moment). My mother suffers from a chronic condition which flared up one night, her brain swelled right up. She was given care on demand. She's never had fluffed pillows and nicely-lit rooms, but she's alive.

I am forced to consider this: if we had lived in America when my mother's Lupus began, given the financial mess we were in, she'd probably be dead. She needed emergency care, then intsensive drugs, and then specialist appointments with rheumatologists. This didn't happen as quickly as it could have, but the NHS will never make someone wait if they know that that wait will harm them. It might not be comfortable for them, but as long as it won't hurt them, it can happen, bearing in mind that the service is free.

In America, she'd have had to pay for the initial GP callout in the middle of the night. Then, the ambulance. Then, the team in A&E that saved her brain. Then, the tests and hospital stay that led to her diagnosis. Then, her drugs, and follow up appointments every six weeks with rheumatolgists for more advanced tests and checks to see whether or not her drugs needed adjusted. In America, there'd be no money for this. What essential steps would we have had to miss?

The standard of care could have been better, but not by any great margin. What matters is that at the end of the day she was seen to.

My friend's parents are both doctors. Through them I have learned how the NHS keep hypochondriacs out, and how they balance the books. The system is not as good as it could be, but it works.

America's technology is beyond a doubt the best in the world. America's healthcare is, I believe, roughly of the same standard as that in Indonesia, simply because most of the people aren't allowed near the big rooms and machines.

There are hardly any people in countries with universal healthcare who will argue against it, because it is the right way to do things. Sasquatch, in a world where you and your family were denied insurance, you'd support it too. And it could happen to you. My family was doing well for itself until matters far beyond our control brought us down, and we might never have gotten back up were it not for the NHS. And the time my brother got smacked in the face with a golf club, the time I got stabbed in the leg, that time my dad crashed his bike, the day when baby Gilbert fell down the stairs...we all owe them something. And we'll never pay as much as we should have for it, because others help us to bear the cost in return for us helping them.

[Walter Sobchak]

In the next two or three years, some pieces of universal health care will begin. I don't know if we can ever achieve true universal health care, since both parties are in the pockets of the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

[Chez Daja]

Yeah, I'm ****ing glad I don't live in America. I spent the first ten years of my life in and out of hospital, and sleights of trips here and there since.

If healthcare wasn't free, I'm pretty sure my family would be a lot less well off. My mother and I have pretty bad medical history. My brother had a hole in his heart when he was born, too, and he had to stay in hospital for a long time. Poor thing. He's okay now, but I can only imagine how much it might've costed us for his care.

The only bad thing about our hospitals is the risk of more illness whilst you stay there.

[Dan558]

Thank you! Finally some people who see that it isn't just junkies and fat people who get "all your money" when it comes to free or "universal" health care. It works great for people who really need it (a lot more people then you think) who have regular, non-"poor" lives. Chez Diaz and Pablo Honey have two perfect examples of how it really is a glorious idea. Rich people who are against it are either to ignorant to realize that fellow human beings need it or are upset that they won't become martyrs when they "donate" ever so graciously to causes. People are just real pessimists when they think its going largely to junkies (most of whom are probably to scared or stupid to go to a real hospital) or the people who have fallen into extreme habits of drinking and smoking(and the like).

I have heard that universal health care is actually cheaper for the government (i have no real sources on this) but think of it this way. A Parent works to support his/her family but contracts an unavoidable illness or injury and they can't work because of it. They aren't rich enough (because they are supporting a family and/or arn't stuck up trust fund babies) to pay for $500,000 of health care (leukemia or a spinal injury for example). They're assets are liquidated to pay for it and they barely get by on, guess what, WELFARE. This is a simple example how it would cost the government just as much if not MORE then just having universal (or "free" as I originally put it) health care, especially when looking at it in the long run.

Not to mention just preserving the lives of yourself (Chez daja) or a loved one (Pablo honey's mother and Chez Daja's family).

Also Canada has had to change the designs of their health cards to stop AMERICANS flooding in with fake OHIP cards for it's universal health care. Sure rich Canadians still go to America for some issues but from people I have personally talked to in Canada it's largely because they are already rich and want preferential, cushy treatments because that's what THEY can afford.

[Sasquatch]

Alright, first and foremost, let's go over this again -- there is no such thing as "free". If it was "free", it wouldn't have funding, it would go bankrupt, and there would be absolutely no service. Just because some people don't pay attention to where their money goes doesn't mean they're not having it sucked out of their paychecks. If "taxpayer funded" is synonymous with "free", everything the government does is "free", and there's no need for taxes.

Not bad. But the way it is here, you don't work, you don't pay a cent. You do work, you pay a few cents a week/fortnight depending on how your job pays.

People that don't work contribute nothing and get the same care -- and you're perfectly fine having more of your money forcibly taken to support them?

Either way you are paying more for the privilege of a little more choice.

Like the choice of a better doctor, or the choice of a closer provider. I'd pay more for that.

And what if they cannot find employment? I just looked at the statistics, and it's at 5.7% as of a August 01, 2008 update at the Bureau of Labour Statistics (Current Population Survey(CPS)). It's not really fair to say they can work to afford private health insurance when some can't even get a job.

Some can't, some won't. That's where personal responsibility comes in. It's not the government's (taxpayers') job to hold your hand through life. Regardless, there is Medicaid for those with extremely low incomes.

It is in terms of how much I'm paying. Decent sized portions for private cover or miniscule amounts for public cover.

And in that case, you'd have to weigh public to private cover. It sounds like there's not too much difference where you are, but that's not exactly the case in the UK or Canada.

That's exactly how I know. When I'm barely earning chicken feed and can't notice money being taken, I know it's bugger all.

So what about people who make more and pay out the ass for it? It's their money and their problem?

Though I've heard horrific stories of some people waiting years on public lists, I don't think I know many who've waited all that long at all.

Most of the waiting lists for operations here in the U.S. are either for health reasons or to wait for a replacement part -- like an organ that has to be taken out of someody else. And stories of rich people buying their way to the front of the line are bogus.

It can and does work. I live in the UK.

Then you should know how "well" it works, right? What, with people having to pull their own teeth, two-year waiting lists and the like?

Link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6.

Our country is full of immigrants, immgrants who breed; also, junkies, fat people, and smokers dying of emphysema. Now, under new British work law, all of the above who don't work will be forced to, as street-cleaners and the like, and they will pay tax as I do towards the running of the NHS.

Good luck trying to pass laws to make everybody work. What about "I have a condition that prevents me from working, and can't get help for it because I can't work"?

Even if they didn't, I wouldn't care. Maybe you're all unsure of it because you're not used to it.

Or because we've heard the horror stories coming out of the UK and Canada. That might be it.

I have never had to consider paying for care in my life, and when I'm old, I won't have to pay for my retirement home either (this, sadly, only applies in Scotland at the moment).

You've never had to consider it because it's taken from you without your knowledge or control. How would you like it if that applied to every part of your life? You will live HERE, and we will take money out of every paycheck for it. You will drive THIS, and we will take money out of every paycheck for it. You will eat THIS, and we will take money out of every paycheck for it. No, no, you don't get a choice -- we know what's best for you.

My mother suffers from a chronic condition which flared up one night, her brain swelled right up. She was given care on demand. She's never had fluffed pillows and nicely-lit rooms, but she's alive.

I am forced to consider this: if we had lived in America when my mother's Lupus began, given the financial mess we were in, she'd probably be dead.

Not true at all. Not only would she have been given emergency care, she would have stayed inpatient and recieved constant treatment until it was safe for her to go home again.

Really, do all problems with American/private healthcare come from misconceptions?

She needed emergency care, then intsensive drugs, and then specialist appointments with rheumatologists.

All of which she could have gotten, even without insurance, in the U.S.

This didn't happen as quickly as it could have, but the NHS will never make someone wait if they know that that wait will harm them. It might not be comfortable for them, but as long as it won't hurt them, it can happen, bearing in mind that the service is free.

Correction: The service is taxpayer-funded.

Are you telling me that nobody dies because the NHS makes them wait?

In America, she'd have had to pay for the initial GP callout in the middle of the night. Then, the ambulance. Then, the team in A&E that saved her brain. Then, the tests and hospital stay that led to her diagnosis. Then, her drugs, and follow up appointments every six weeks with rheumatolgists for more advanced tests and checks to see whether or not her drugs needed adjusted. In America, there'd be no money for this. What essential steps would we have had to miss?

Well, in America, instead of having money involuntarily sucked out of her income, she would have a choice on what healthcare insurance to spend that money on. She would have had to pay a few hundred dollars worth of deductible, and the insurance would cover the rest. And hell, people can finance the deductible if they can't afford it. And even if she didn't have insurance, she still would have been treated.

The standard of care could have been better, but not by any great margin. What matters is that at the end of the day she was seen to.

Just as she would have been with or without insurance in the U.S., so I don't know why you think she would have died had she been in America.

America's technology is beyond a doubt the best in the world.

Actually, America shares its technology, or sells it cheaply. The difference is that America pays for its technology.

There are hardly any people in countries with universal healthcare who will argue against it, because it is the right way to do things.

Or because they don't know any different.

Sasquatch, in a world where you and your family were denied insurance, you'd support it too.

I've been through that world, and I still don't support it. Please, don't assume a lack of experience because I don't agree with you.

And the time my brother got smacked in the face with a golf club, the time I got stabbed in the leg, that time my dad crashed his bike, the day when baby Gilbert fell down the stairs...we all owe them something.

You say that like they wouldn't have gotten care under a private system like the U.S.

Finally some people who see that it isn't just junkies and fat people who get "all your money" when it comes to free or "universal" health care.

Nobody said that was the case. It was just pointed out that those who require and extreme amount of care and those who require no care at all pay the same thing. Hell, those who require an extreme amount of care might pay absolutely nothing, and instead, they rely on everybody else. And then they bitch when they think they might not get the care they "deserve".

It works great for people who really need it (a lot more people then you think) who have regular, non-"poor" lives.

Insurance works great, too. And most people can afford it, if they choose to. For those that honestly can't, there are social programs for them, too.

Rich people who are against it are either to ignorant to realize that fellow human beings need it or are upset that they won't become martyrs when they "donate" ever so graciously to causes.

What is it with you and wealth envy? We get it, they have money, you don't, and you're angry.

First off, "rich people" don't donate to charity to look "gracious". And it's not just "rich people" that donate, either.

Second, maybe those evil "rich people" are tired of having their money taken by force to support those who don't, or won't, support themselves.

People are just real pessimists when they think its going largely to junkies (most of whom are probably to scared or stupid to go to a real hospital) or the people who have fallen into extreme habits of drinking and smoking(and the like).

It's a good thing nobody's said that's all it goes to. But the fact remains that some of the people sucking off the taxpayers' teat are those kinds of people.

A Parent works to support his/her family but contracts an unavoidable illness or injury and they can't work because of it. They aren't rich enough (because they are supporting a family and/or arn't stuck up trust fund babies) to pay for $500,000 of health care (leukemia or a spinal injury for example).

Quit with the wealth envy kid, it just makes you sound immature. Anyway. Hopefully, that parent was responsible enough to prioritize and budget to pay for health insurance. If that was the case, he/she would pay a couple hundred bucks for the health care, but also be paid for the amount of time he/she spent out of work, as most private insurance companies do. If he/she was not responsible enough to plan ahead and pay for insurance, they would get the care they require and be in debt, paying for it with as little as five dollars a month.

If five bucks a month is enough to put somebody on welfare, they need to have their kids taken away and given to responsible people.

Also Canada has had to change the designs of their health cards to stop AMERICANS flooding in with fake OHIP cards for it's universal health care.

Evidence? Sure, some people might sneak across the border because they're not responsible enough to budget their finances, or smart enough to realize that they'd get the care they need -- and better quality -- in the U.S.

Sure rich Canadians still go to America for some issues but from people I have personally talked to in Canada it's largely because they are already rich and want preferential, cushy treatments because that's what THEY can afford.

OR, it could be because they don't like waiting months or years in Canada to get mediocre care that they could get faster and better a few miles South.

[Clint]

Canada has socialized health care. What it does is give free health care to people who can't afford it, people who have high risk of medical problems, or people with other problems. Then, citizens who aren't in dire need of health care have to pay somewhere along the lines of 3,000 to 5,000 dollars a year depending on the size of their families. If they don't pay, then socialized health care won't have enough money to operate on a yearly basis.

[Lazer]

@Gunslinger
Actually health care in Canada is a provincial matter. In Nova Scotia no one pays for health care. Here in Alberta everyone pays 40 a month. As for the other provinces I don't know.

One thing I know for sure though is that free/almost free health care is awesome. As are in my opinion most socialist ideas. I watch my countries back my country watches my back. A little extra tax on my morning coffee and my cigarette's is a small price to pay in my opinion. Actually tax on cigarettes is over 200% I believe, to make up for the use of extra health care. And honestly I refuse to believe any health practitioner has had anything but my best interests at heart. Some are little rough around the edges but I think almost all doctors honestly want to help people.

[Clint]

@Gunslinger
Here in Alberta everyone pays 40 a month. As for the other provinces I don't know.

Damn, I'm getting ripped off. I have to pay a little over a thousand dollars a year. If you're talking 40 dollars a month, you're only talking 480 dollars a year. What the hell?

Actually tax on cigarettes is over 200% I believe, to make up for the use of extra health care.

Huh. I always wondered why the tax on cigarettes was ridiculously high.

[Govinda]

Sasquatch, we wouldn't have been able to afford insurance in the situation we were in.

I will not be forced into a home when I'm old. I'll be offered one for free, and I can turn it down if I like.

Yes, the American health system would have kept her alive, but there would have been a bill at the end. My American friend's boyfriend has biplor depression. He went mental one night, and needed care. He was hospitalised and treated. Two weeks later a bill for $7000 landed on his doormat.

It feels free to us, believe me, because we're used to paying the taxes. It's not a great amount. And also, you can choose private healthcare in the UK with a group called BUPA. But because the NHS exists, hardly anyone chooses to pay the extra to go private.

The NHS has never let anyone die from waiting, not beyond accidents (and they will always happen). I know doctors, both of one of my best friend's parents are doctors who work for the NHS. There are checks and balances.

I know accidents are treated, I know my mother would have been cared for. I remind you that we have never, since 1992, been in a position to afford health insurance. They would have been cared for, but there would have been a bill at the end. My mother's antiflams and immunosupressants can be expensive things; would we have been able to afford them in America?

Don't even try to posture that the NHS has killed more people than the American system has.

If you like your system, fine. But please try to recognise the merits of a universal system. I'm not going to say anything more.

[Sasquatch]

Actually health care in Canada is a provincial matter. In Nova Scotia no one pays for health care.

And do you honestly think that a system that takes in absolutely no money can sustain itself?

One thing I know for sure though is that free/almost free health care is awesome. As are in my opinion most socialist ideas.

I'll present to you the situation I presented Pablo Honey in my last post. How would you like if other systems were treated like your healthcare system? Where you live, what you drive, what you eat -- if you think the government has your best interests in mind when it comes to healthcare (pshaw), would you have a problem with the government controlling the rest of your life, too?

I watch my countries back my country watches my back.

Why can't you just watch your own back?

Sasquatch, we wouldn't have been able to afford insurance in the situation we were in.

Do you know how much health insurance costs -- and how much extra you would have had in each paycheck if it wasn't sucked out without your knowledge or consent? Laser just said that people in Alberta pay forty bucks a month -- I just saw an ad for health insurance for $44/month. Not even an HMO.

I will not be forced into a home when I'm old. I'll be offered one for free, and I can turn it down if I like.

Nobody's "forced into a home". Nursing homes are for people who can't take care of themselves -- and they don't have to go if they don't want to.

Yes, the American health system would have kept her alive, but there would have been a bill at the end.

If she didn't have insurance -- which she could have been able to afford -- yes, there'd be a bill. But like I've said, she could finance it for five bucks a month. I know two people who are doing this.

My American friend's boyfriend has biplor depression. He went mental one night, and needed care. He was hospitalised and treated. Two weeks later a bill for $7000 landed on his doormat.

Seven grand is a hell of a bill -- my girlfriend with the same disorder went "mental" and didn't get to half that. Because she wasn't smart enough to get insurance. And you know how she's paying it? Slowly. It's not, by any means, busting her budget.

It feels free to us, believe me, because we're used to paying the taxes. It's not a great amount.

So because they've been robbing the populace to fund a mediocre program for sixty years, nobody cares anymore?

The NHS has never let anyone die from waiting, not beyond accidents (and they will always happen).

Maybe you mean "negligence" instead of "accidents".

Britain shamed by NHS death rates | Politics | The Observer
"Patients who have major surgery in Britain are four times more likely to die than those in America ... The authors conclude that NHS waiting lists, the lack of specialist-led care and the fact that many patients do not go routinely to intensive care contribute largely to the difference."

NHS Blog Doctor: Death by Waiting List
"Death by waiting list as ipso facto evidence of medical negligence? The hospital system would fall apart. Sounds like a bad dream, doesn’t it? Sounds like general practice to me."

UK health industry news, NHS waiting list, private medical insurance UK
"However, Liberal Democrat Shadow Health Secretary Norman Lamb said: “The fact that doctors in such great numbers are taking out insurance to sidestep waiting times simply demonstrates that we have got a long way to go.""
Also includes the story of a man with a nine-grand bill that he gave to the NHS because he would have died if he waited for NHS care instead of paying for his own.
""I have paid my National Insurance contributions for 48-years and I should have had better service than this. The NHS failed me when I needed it"."

My mother's antiflams and immunosupressants can be expensive things; would we have been able to afford them in America?

Yes, you would have -- just like my stepmother has.

Don't even try to posture that the NHS has killed more people than the American system has.

You think otherwise? Sure, people in America have died because they're ignorant enough to think they won't be treated and don't go to the hospital, but the NHS kills more people than the American system does. Maybe not in terms of numbers, but percentage of patients. I've already showed that patients wh oundergo major surgery are four times as likely to die if they get it done by the NHS as opposed to American hospitals.

If you like your system, fine. But don't just form blind opinions because it's all you know, find the good and bad about it and other systems.

[Dan558]

Ulgh... I can't believe I'm being sucked back into this but it’s really hard for me to ignore it.

So one of sasquatches big problems with universal health Care is that it will be taken out of everyone’s taxes without individual consent for a service he has no real control of quality over. So he doesn't wanna pay because he wants to have the free "choice" of what and when he gets this service. He seems to imply that it's a dictatorship-like move on the same lines of where to live, what to eat etc. etc.

So when does this "choice" stop and why? Government is good when it gives you a choice yes, but none give every individual every choice. Otherwise there is no point in a government. Why do we pay for police services when we could all have personal protection/bodyguards? Why pay for fire services if you could just pay for a new course that tells you how to hook up your own hose so you could personally help yourself or your friends? In that case if it’s a problem with not wanting to get "the closest family doctor" (not sasquatch someone else) because you don't have personal choice why can't you ask for the firefighters in the next cities over because you have seen that they are slightly better than the perfectly qualified closer ones? Why pay for public schools when we could all be home schooled (people have said b4 that its much better anyways)? Or why go to school at all? You don't need a grade 12 education to be a professional surfer. How about just plain every-man for him/herself? Where do we stop having choice before things devolve into anarchy?

You may think it's ridiculous that I took it that far in that direction but its just the opposite of Sasquatchs:

How would you like it if that applied to every part of your life? You will live HERE, and we will take money out of every paycheck for it. You will drive THIS, and we will take money out of every paycheck for it. You will eat THIS, and we will take money out of every paycheck for it. No, no, you don't get a choice -- we know what's best for you.

[Furore]

And do you honestly think that a system that takes in absolutely no money can sustain itself?

I think often the governments pay it through tax, which can be imposed on things you buy, often optional things that may hurt your health such as cigarettes and some forms of alcohol. How's that for attacking two beasties with the one coin?

Also Sassy, I found a figure on the UK. With their system as it is (mostly public), less than 8% of the population bother with private insurance. Interesting figure there, no? That would indicate that a whole lot of people there are happy with their public healthcare. 84% of the US have private insurance, and though some programs with very strict eligibility restrictions do exist, not all of the tens of millions of those not being able to afford private insurance can get it.

The Aussie program (Medicare, not to be confused with US Medicare) is currently set at 1.5%. And an exemption applies to low income earners. We also have an awesome pharmaceutical benefits scheme to help those who would otherwise fork out a crapload for meds.

Also, I agree 100% with that last post of Dan558s. Very much so.

[Sasquatch]

So one of sasquatches big problems with universal health Care is that it will be taken out of everyone’s taxes without individual consent for a service he has no real control of quality over. So he doesn't wanna pay because he wants to have the free "choice" of what and when he gets this service.

Not "when". There's no need to have choice or control of "when" somebody gets healthcare -- it's when they need it. Minus long waiting lists. But yes, choice of a better service, you bet.

He seems to imply that it's a dictatorship-like move on the same lines of where to live, what to eat etc. etc.

How 'bout no? I simply made the comparison that since some people don't have a problem with the government controlling one part of their lives, how would they like the government controlling other parts the same way? And I still haven't gotten an answer.

Government is good when it gives you a choice yes, but none give every individual every choice.

You've got the wrong idea about it -- it's not "government is good when it gives you a choice", it's "government is bad when it takes away your choice". It's not that it doesn't have to, but it's good when it does, it's that it shouldn't have anything to do with it anyway, and it's bad when it interferes.

Why do we pay for police services when we could all have personal protection/bodyguards?

Because it's the government's job to protect us from others, not from ourselves. But please don't tell me you're trying to compare police services to healthcare. Most importantly, when the police fail -- or even when they don't -- there are investigations out the ass, and they take responsibility for it. That includes, but is not limited to, the fact that a Sheriff is a public office. If you don't like how your Sheriff is doing, you can vote his ass out of office and put somebody new in there. How many people are elected by their constituents to run a hospital?

And let's also not forget that everybody can buy a firearm for their own personal protection, and that many people who can afford it actually do have bodyguards.

Why pay for fire services if you could just pay for a new course that tells you how to hook up your own hose so you could personally help yourself or your friends?

There are differences, if you hadn't noticed, between garden hoses and fire hoses. Mainly that the job couldn't get done without equipment that the fire department brings. Oh, and there are private and "volunteer" fire departments, if you didn't know.

In that case if it’s a problem with not wanting to get "the closest family doctor" (not sasquatch someone else) because you don't have personal choice why can't you ask for the firefighters in the next cities over because you have seen that they are slightly better than the perfectly qualified closer ones?

If they're "perfectly qualified", there wouldn't be a need to go to a different city, would there? Besides, that's an emergency response thing -- you don't go to them, they come to you. During an emergency situation, nobody in their right mind would deny the first available help unless they're either extremely incompetent or not that much different in distance than a better one anyway.

Why pay for public schools when we could all be home schooled (people have said b4 that its much better anyways)?

Or private school, since private schools have outperformed public schools in nearly every aspect for decades? Hell, I'm all for school vouchers and choice. The way it is now -- in the U.S., anyway -- you can put your kid in private school if you want to, but you'll still have your money taken and given to the public school system, even though you're not a part of it.

Or why go to school at all? You don't need a grade 12 education to be a professional surfer.

What does that have to do with healthcare? Besides, if your surfing career doesn't go anywhere, what'd you do then?

How about just plain every-man for him/herself?Where do we stop having choice before things devolve into anarchy?

The systems in place now are developed by the people, for the people. If they were to pass a law tomorrow that disbanded every police unit, there would be private organizations chomping at the bit to set up police stations to fill their gaps. Every system in place now was started when somebody said, "You know what, this would be a good idea." Socialized medicine is one of those things that wouldn't be a good idea -- and the U.S. only has to look North or at their British allies to see how bad of an idea it is.

You may think it's ridiculous that I took it that far in that direction but its just the opposite of Sasquatchs:

The way, way, way opposite. You're comparing apples to oranges. I was expanding what's already going on.

I think often the governments pay it through tax, which can be imposed on things you buy, often optional things that may hurt your health such as cigarettes and some forms of alcohol. How's that for attacking two beasties with the one coin?

They pay for it through tax -- which means it's nowhere near a situation of "no one pays for health care". Sure, the people that endanger their health more pay more for health care, but they don't necessarily use the money they put into it, and all the healthy people get taxed, too.

Maybe if more money was put into it, it would be a better system. And Canadians wouldn't have to come into America to get better healthcare because American hospitals are well-funded.

Also Sassy, I found a figure on the UK. With their system as it is (mostly public), less than 8% of the population bother with private insurance. Interesting figure there, no? That would indicate that a whole lot of people there are happy with their public healthcare.

That would indicate that 92% of the people are either satisfied enough with public health care or unsatisfied and cannot afford private healthcare. Just because I'm not looking to buy a new vehicle doesn't mean I like my truck exactly how it is.

84% of the US have private insurance, and though some programs with very strict eligibility restrictions do exist, not all of the tens of millions of those not being able to afford private insurance can get it.

Just because they don't doesn't mean they can't. Programs are designed to make sure nobody goes without -- but if they're too incompetent to go about it, it's nobody's fault but their own. There are federal, state, even county programs that people can get into -- and most of the time, the "very strict eligibility restrictions" consist of, "Where do you live?", and "Do you make less than 'x' amount of money?" Hell, even certain hospital systems have their own programs.

We also have an awesome pharmaceutical benefits scheme to help those who would otherwise fork out a crapload for meds.

We have those too, but they're private. Like Wal-Mart's prescription plan, where people pay four bucks a month for their medication.

[LocoColt04]

To take a step back for a moment, I've noticed a lot of outrageous figures being thrown out here and there. $10,000 for this, $500,000 for that. These are numbers assuming people don't have health insurance.

This is WHY you should have health insurance in America.

I've been in the hospital three times thus far this year; the first time, I paid a $50 co-pay, the second, it was $50 + roughly $15 in payments for pain medications. And then, when I was there just last weekend, I didn't pay a dime.

Let's reiterate. DIDN'T PAY A DIME.

It was an overnight stay, with a large vial of blood to go through three separate tests, all of which cost money. There was a urinalysis. And on top of that, there was a CT-scan of the abdomen which costs some ridiculous number like $15,000 or something. I'm honestly not sure and I'm at work so I don't feel up to researching the matter. There was even a prescription for after release for some medication to keep my stomach in line.

But again, I didn't pay a dime. There will be no billing. The insurance fronted all of it.

You know why? Because I've paid my $100 deductible for the year of 2008. I don't owe anything else until my first hospital visit in 2009. Sure, based on what medications may be prescribed, I may owe some fraction of their cost (generally with painkillers and the sort, but I avoid those as much as possible... old drug habits gone wrong).

When I see my doctor, there's a $20 co-pay.
When I see a specialist, there's a $40 co-pay.

All doctor's visits are free if they are follow-ups or referrals. I went to my primary as a follow-up from my hospital visit last week and didn't pay a dime. I'll be going to my urologist because my kidney's ****ed up again and won't pay a dime.

If Americans owe a metric ****ton of money for healthcare, CLEARLY they aren't doing it right.

My healthcare's pretty damned cheap.



NOW. The topic is regarding free health care plans, and whether the States should support this. I guess I should do more than just point out a fallacy in some of the arguments and actually give my piece on the topic here. Personally, I'm not opposed to such a thing, but I am not the healthiest of people. For me, it would be quite beneficial. Politically, I'm not a fan at all. It shouldn't be fair for Joe Schmoe to pay for JimBob's operation. If we could get a flat tax rate going on (rather than this stupid tiered taxes bullshit), then it would be possible, and I'd go for it. Until then, I don't think it's a legitimate option. The middle class is going to front the bill for the country, and I'm not okay with that.



Oh, and Sasquatch is right. Don't stereotype.
I'm a registered Democrat and I have nine guns.

[Furore]

Not "when". There's no need to have choice or control of "when" somebody gets healthcare -- it's when they need it. Minus long waiting lists. But yes, choice of a better service, you bet.

Oh there's a huge 'when' if I'm not mistaken. Healthcare is for 'when' something involving health treatment pops up. Unless you're a very healthy person who dies very quickly through instantaneous combustion or something, chances are you will need to be in hospital at least a few times during your life. And I don't recall ever being in a long waiting list myself. On the times I go to hospital I get fixed up right quick and professionally as well.

How 'bout no? I simply made the comparison that since some people don't have a problem with the government controlling one part of their lives, how would they like the government controlling other parts the same way? And I still haven't gotten an answer.

I'm experiencing it and I like it. Even if I live past 100, I know I'll never have paid as much as was paid to keep me healthy, which is a sentiment a lot of people in countries like mine might echo. And I don't have to go forking out no hundred dollar fees neither.

You've got the wrong idea about it -- it's not "government is good when it gives you a choice", it's "government is bad when it takes away your choice". It's not that it doesn't have to, but it's good when it does, it's that it shouldn't have anything to do with it anyway, and it's bad when it interferes.

The government IS good when it gives you a choice. The opposite of that would be it not giving you a choice. And this is one of those things where if enough people bitch about it, a policy is made to fix the problem in question by whoever wants to be the next leader. Regardless of what happens there's choice, just different kinds.

Because it's the government's job to protect us from others, not from ourselves. But please don't tell me you're trying to compare police services to healthcare. Most importantly, when the police fail -- or even when they don't -- there are investigations out the ass, and they take responsibility for it. That includes, but is not limited to, the fact that a Sheriff is a public office. If you don't like how your Sheriff is doing, you can vote his ass out of office and put somebody new in there. How many people are elected by their constituents to run a hospital?

And let's also not forget that everybody can buy a firearm for their own personal protection, and that many people who can afford it actually do have bodyguards.

And when doctors and the like **** up there are also investigations. Some out here are actually a little bit scared by just how liable they are. Hospital staff can be fired for not being up to the tasks, that I know.

Yeah, and over here where guns aren't so readily available they use their fists (or if pussies, knives, sporting goods, rocks etc, etc, etc.). Bodyguards and firearms don't often carry the same weight as police, especially in a legal sense.

There are differences, if you hadn't noticed, between garden hoses and fire hoses. Mainly that the job couldn't get done without equipment that the fire department brings. Oh, and there are private and "volunteer" fire departments, if you didn't know.

Neither hose is all that effective on electrical fires I believe. No, there's fire extinguishers available to both regular people and the fire brigade for those. But yeah, the fire brigade are publicly owned, and the private and volunteer fire departments are often dedicated to specific areas. Like those here who fight bushfires.

If they're "perfectly qualified", there wouldn't be a need to go to a different city, would there? Besides, that's an emergency response thing -- you don't go to them, they come to you. During an emergency situation, nobody in their right mind would deny the first available help unless they're either extremely incompetent or not that much different in distance than a better one anyway.

The public services here all allow for the same doctors. If a person needs a specialist than the specialist is supplied. The only difference is you don't get to pick your specific doctor when going public.

Or private school, since private schools have outperformed public schools in nearly every aspect for decades? Hell, I'm all for school vouchers and choice. The way it is now -- in the U.S., anyway -- you can put your kid in private school if you want to, but you'll still have your money taken and given to the public school system, even though you're not a part of it.

Either way, if the kid has enough drive he/she can go far. There's only so much more for a person a private school can do than a public school. If they really want something, the school shouldn't matter too much.

What does that have to do with healthcare? Besides, if your surfing career doesn't go anywhere, what'd you do then?

If movies have taught me anything, people who suck at surfing can live in a cheap van smoking cannabis and going on odd adventures.
But in all seriousness, not all that many people seriously dedicate themselves to a sport like surfing without having a backup career path in mind.

The systems in place now are developed by the people, for the people. If they were to pass a law tomorrow that disbanded every police unit, there would be private organizations chomping at the bit to set up police stations to fill their gaps. Every system in place now was started when somebody said, "You know what, this would be a good idea." Socialized medicine is one of those things that wouldn't be a good idea -- and the U.S. only has to look North or at their British allies to see how bad of an idea it is.

Or you could look at Australia and how kickass we have things.
And I heard Canada wasn't exactly complaining as far as their quality of life is concerned neither. Nor those Britain allies really. I think this thread itself shows that to some extent. Everyone who's experienced public healthcare swears by it.

The way, way, way opposite. You're comparing apples to oranges. I was expanding what's already going on.

And he was trying to point out a flaw in your argument. Like how other services managed by the government hold up well and this might too. How can you be so against something you've never experienced? I mean, you preach loving choice, but a big part of choice is fully knowing your options.

They pay for it through tax -- which means it's nowhere near a situation of "no one pays for health care". Sure, the people that endanger their health more pay more for health care, but they don't necessarily use the money they put into it, and all the healthy people get taxed, too.

Maybe if more money was put into it, it would be a better system. And Canadians wouldn't have to come into America to get better healthcare because American hospitals are well-funded.

Just nothing visible. And tax finances pretty much everything here. Roads, hospitals, military, utilities, upkeep of public parks. How else is a government gonna pay for everything? Last I looked, money didn't grow on trees.

And money does tend to be put into these kinds of systems. A LOT of money. At least in Australia I've noticed.

That would indicate that 92% of the people are either satisfied enough with public health care or unsatisfied and cannot afford private healthcare. Just because I'm not looking to buy a new vehicle doesn't mean I like my truck exactly how it is.

And just because you don't like your truck exactly as it is, doesn't mean you need a new vehicle. If something is up to doing the same job as something else just as well when cheaper, why not?

Just because they don't doesn't mean they can't. Programs are designed to make sure nobody goes without -- but if they're too incompetent to go about it, it's nobody's fault but their own. There are federal, state, even county programs that people can get into -- and most of the time, the "very strict eligibility restrictions" consist of, "Where do you live?", and "Do you make less than 'x' amount of money?" Hell, even certain hospital systems have their own programs.

We also have government run programs for these things, and most involve paperwork that is often more technically minded than most and can be quite confusing at times. And it's rarely limited to the questions you stated, often asking what a person's current financial status is, how much income they expect to make in a year, and other such questions. Make one little mistake anywhere and they'll spring on you like a snake.

We have those too, but they're private. Like Wal-Mart's prescription plan, where people pay four bucks a month for their medication.

How amusing. I pay less than that when on meds, and that's in Australian dollars too. And no regular large sums from me.

NOW. The topic is regarding free health care plans, and whether the States should support this. I guess I should do more than just point out a fallacy in some of the arguments and actually give my piece on the topic here. Personally, I'm not opposed to such a thing, but I am not the healthiest of people. For me, it would be quite beneficial. Politically, I'm not a fan at all. It shouldn't be fair for Joe Schmoe to pay for JimBob's operation. If we could get a flat tax rate going on (rather than this stupid tiered taxes bullshit), then it would be possible, and I'd go for it. Until then, I don't think it's a legitimate option. The middle class is going to front the bill for the country, and I'm not okay with that.

And there are a lot of other people who would benefit from such a thing including some who wouldn't be able to afford private health cover at all. In a country with a population as big as the US, I would think that to be something of a certainty. The middle class here foot a bill for public healthcare as do the upper class, but it's that small we barely notice (if at all) and we can share in that top quality treatment if we wish. It's not like you're just paying a little AND receiving nothing in return.

Oh, and Sasquatch is right. Don't stereotype.

He said that in this thread? If so I think it'd be the most well informed thing I've read so far in his posts in this thread. Good going Sasquatch. =]

I'm a registered Democrat and I have nine guns.

I'm a strong gamer who prefers fists and feet to weapons.
I also have an affinity for Mountain Dew.
But mostly Rum. Rum is nice.
I'm against compulsory voting as in some cases you can't win so it doesn't matter.
And I like testing my strength, even if it's through manual labour.

Stereotypes might be bullshit, but some people seem to fall into them quite well, especially if they don't show anything bar what makes them seem like that kind of stereotype. Stereotyping might be wrong, but it often gets results regardless. LET'S ALL SHOW HOW WE'RE NOT SOME KIND OF COMMON STEREOTYPE!!!!.