USA health system... umm... what the hell?!

[Jakub324]

There has to be problem with a system like that. I live in the UK where you only have to wait weeks for an exam, but at least you don't have to cough too much up, if any.

 

[Ghengis John]

BUT COMMUNISM AND COMMUNISM IS BAD BECAUSE TERRORISM AND NAZIS AND FREE SPEECH

Your response here. This is about what this thread requires. It is also win.

See my response here, number: 180?

That guy is going to take one look at it. Furrow his brow. Huff, turn around then go "damn guvernment!".

 

[Jegsimmons]

Don't judge an entire system on one event.
Quite frankly, I'm not very happy about our system. But not because I support government health care. I don't. I'm unhappy because of all the restrictions put on insurance companies and hospitals so it cost an arm and a leg To do anything.

And yet the English NHS is considered the most efficient health system on the planet. So why don't you want support for this stuff. People pay not nearly as much in taxes as you do in insurance. And don't for one second think its legislation that makes treatment in your country cost a ton. Healthcare over there costs a ton because the insurance companies want to make money of your health and they have enough money pumped into Washington to allow them to charge however much they like.

Also this can be used to judge the system because of how casual people were about it till people with a real health system started wondering WTF America. Because no one batted an eyelid at the health company it can be guessed that it is not a rare occurrence.

The poor of America (about 50 million people) get the delightful choice between eating or having insurance. Seriously why have you guys not sorted this thing out already.

i assume you dont live in america....but i digress. irrelevance.

heres the deal...i couldn't give a shit about england's health care...that's england not america. argue all you want that two different cultures and two different nations.
insurance wouldnt be so fucking expensive if they would release restrictions on the companies, you may not know this but i can't purchase insurance from outside of my state. so what happens? you start getting monopolies in individual state because you eliminated the possibility of competition. If you allow competition you cause the insurance companies to lower prices and up benefits to attract consumers and employees. thus more people will be able to get health insurance. And not just that either, you give medical school and student tax breaks and more benefits to make going to medical school easier and less stressful it will be easier to not only get doctors that know their craft but in the long run and can decrease prices.(thats just one area, there are a ton the government could assist such as medical research and what not). argue all you want, health care is in fact not a god given right. it never was. and neither is it a right granted by the US government (thank god because they can barely run the fucking post office and balance a budget)
yes universal health care is a nice idea...but why should it be government ran? why can't the government help the private sectors to make health care more affordable with out makeing cuts (after all they are to HELP the private sector and keep up competition, not BE the competition.)

(p.s. poverty in america is determined by your yearly income, not what you can afford...so..yeah saying 50 million people are poor is...iffy...and its not 50 million)

 

[scott91575]

There has to be problem with a system like that. I live in the UK where you only have to wait weeks for an exam, but at least you don't have to cough too much up, if any.

Same is true in the US, well, except I can normally see my family doctor in a day or two or go get same day examination from urgent care. With insurance, I pay little to nothing. I had to have surgery, and I was in within a few days after examination from a surgeon (which again, took maybe a day or two from being recommended by my primary care physician).

The problem is people without health care insurance. As I stated, there is a happy medium that allows for innovation, a stream lined business model without the usual government waste, and coverage for lower end people. This is pretty much what everyone in the government agrees upon. The problem is how to implement it, and sadly there is so much bickering between the parties it is tough to do. In the mean time we are stuck with the current system, which admittedly is broken.

 

[WallyWombat]

I find it funny how so many people criticize the United States, when their own countries have big problems as well. The UK has a terrible education system much like that of the southern US. Australia's educated population is vanishing, I was there last summer and people there barely know much other than stereotypes. But yes the American health care system is pretty bad.

 

[Chefodeath]

If they don't want to do it, then they shouldn't have to. If Americans want to gamble with their health if it means it might save them a bit of money, then that's their choice to make. People like to go on about how the poor are pretty much fucked. Thats very sad and all, but I don't see why the tax payer is obligated to fix it. The entire idea that they are goes against American values.

 

[BoTTeNBReKeR]

Living in Belgium, I've had over 12 medical procedures to my legs in the past 18 years. So, I'm completely horrified by the US Healthcare (if you can even call it that).

 

[Canid117]

I love it when threads like this pop up. I love watching people attack my country in its entirety for one issue or another so that they can feel edgy. Good times.

But yes healthcare needs reform and it is getting it. Sadly the bill doesn't go into affect for a while. Not entirely sure why.

 

[scott91575]

Proud to be Canadian. Free health care! ^.^

I view the american health care system as some sort of legal blackmail. (*activates flame shield*) Think about it. You are dying, you need help. Give this guy several thousand dollars, and you can live. You can't get it, you die. Pay or Die. It's as simple as that.

Slightly OT: What happens if your injury leaves you unable to communicate, with no family or friends you can give out your health care info, and no identification? Do they just hope that you have the money, or just let you die? Never quite understood that.

All hospitals have care for uninsured for life threatening illness. Of course the biggest issue is the long waits, and yes, you could die in the mean time.

For emergency care, they do not turn you away. You do need to provide financial information after you are treated, and if you are above the minimum (I think it's $12,000 a year) they will pro rate cost up to the full cost (I think it's somewhere around $40,000+ income in the last year will require full payment).

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Yeah, I know. We should have upgraded to the European system by now. I mean, regenerating health is some much better, but they still insist on keeping us dependent on health packs when we lose some HP.

 

[roflmecopter]

america the land where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer the poor babies starve and the rich babies sit fat in golden cribs. But hey atleast theres no evil red commies!

 

[Duskflamer]

I love it when threads like this pop up. I love watching people attack my country in its entirety for one issue or another so that they can feel edgy. Good times.

Eh, for better or worse entire countries tend to be judged by the actions of their government, and we did elect the people in charge. In the end, I highly doubt that everyone in Nazi Germany wanted to wage war with the rest of the world, but guess what they're remembered for?

 

[scott91575]

If they don't want to do it, then they shouldn't have to. If Americans want to gamble with their health if it means it might save them a bit of money, then that's their choice to make. People like to go on about how the poor are pretty much fucked. Thats very sad and all, but I don't see why the tax payer is obligated to fix it. The entire idea that they are goes against American values.

I would disagree to a point. There should be a level of care available to everyone, and that is not against American ideals. No matter how poor you are, you are given a free education through high school (and subsidized education for college). There is a benefit to society not to have people on the lower end of the financial scale suffer from illnesses, especially children.

As I have stated already, I am not for full scale socialized medicine, but some form of health care for all is a benefit. Capitalism is nice, but even the US has learned there needs to be some checks and balances that work out for the overall benefit.

 

[icaritos]

Perhaps there are ways we can reduce the cost. Maybe pay Doctors less and Teachers more. That would be a smart thing to do. Doctors are paid ridiculous amounts of money and I can assure you most of that money goes to them.

Just don't go into socialized medicine because that is even worse.

Canada, UK, Australia, Denmark, Switzerland. Please clarify how "going into socialized medicine" is much worse than the shitty conditions the US has now.

For starters, the U.S.A. is an incredibly nice place to live

Are you seriously implying that all those first world countries are bad places to live in? This is absurdity and media brainwashing at its finest. I have cousins who lived 2 years in Australia and are doing everything they can to return there, and I myself am currently living in the UK.

If you are going to make an argument, at the very least put some effort into it.

 

[Jegsimmons]

Don't judge an entire system on one event.
Quite frankly, I'm not very happy about our system. But not because I support government health care. I don't. I'm unhappy because of all the restrictions put on insurance companies and hospitals so it cost an arm and a leg To do anything.

What kind of restrictions are on health care companies and hospitals? Are they the same restrictions for both? Would NOT having such restrictions make it possible for them to pay up when they're called upon? And do you really think, that with out these "restrictions", that they'd ACTUALLY do it?

one major restriction i'm talking about is the fact insurance can not be bought across state lines, which has the effect of lowering competition and have one dominant company in a state, which in turn will end up giving a higher priced lower quality service.

allow that competition and not only will the price be lower and the benefits be higher and pre existing conditions won't be as much of a hassle, but they will also compete for employees. and i guarantee you, more people will be able to afford health care. ive asked economist and doctors on this. universal healthcare doesn't need to be government ran health care.

 

[scott91575]

Firemen would have to ask people to provide insurance documents whilst they're house is burning down.

In the US, they do... Look up 'emergency services coverage' and be amazed.

That is only if you are outside of a fire departments jurisdiction. Sadly, some of that occurs since fire departments are financed through local governments. There have been occasions where firemen could not help someone outside of their local area, yet for the most part no, you do not need to provide anything if you are within a local jurisdiction.

That is more of a problem with the separation of local, state, and federal governments.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I know you said to keep the America-bashing to a minimum, but that's really at the crux of this issue. We are not a democracy. We are a plutocracy. This isn't really up for debate. People with money get things done, and they do for themselves and their interests - not for the good of the nation.

Privatizing health insurance is supposed to keep costs down, yet we have the highest health care costs in the world by an astounding margin. Why is that? To hear the insurance lobbyists tell it, we're not privatizing hard enough; too many restrictions, too much legislation aimed at limiting what providers can do. That's the problem, apparently. It's not that free market systems are subject to the whims of the wealthiest and most powerful among us. It's not that rich people have invariably attempted to "game" every single society they've lived since the dawn of fucking time.

It's the anti-free market legislation. Of course.

Sidebar: there's a reason why the vast majority of scientists are considered "liberal". You really can't employ America's modern conservative philosophies and the scientific method at the same time.

 

[Canid117]

I love it when threads like this pop up. I love watching people attack my country in its entirety for one issue or another so that they can feel edgy. Good times.

Eh, for better or worse entire countries tend to be judged by the actions of their government, and we did elect the people in charge. In the end, I highly doubt that everyone in Nazi Germany wanted to wage war with the rest of the world, but guess what they're remembered for?

Overcharging for a surgery is a little different than trying to conquer Europe and getting 50 million people killed.

 

[icaritos]

Perhaps there are ways we can reduce the cost. Maybe pay Doctors less and Teachers more. That would be a smart thing to do. Doctors are paid ridiculous amounts of money and I can assure you most of that money goes to them.

Just don't go into socialized medicine because that is even worse.

Canada, UK, Australia, Denmark, Switzerland. Please clarify how "going into socialized medicine" is much worse than the shitty conditions the US has now.

For starters, the U.S.A. is an incredibly nice place to live

Are you seriously implying that all those first world countries are bad places to live in? This is absurdity and media brainwashing at its finest. I have cousins who lived 2 years in Australia and are doing everything they can to return there, and I myself am currently living in the UK.

If you are going to make an argument, at the very least put some effort into it.

Actually, I wasn't implying that. I'm just saying that it's nice to live in the U.S.A. so the system we have in place must be doing something right.

That is a weak argument, the US is nowhere near the best place in the world, and regardless there is always room for improvement.

Either way your original point was that socialized medicine is bad, I showed you examples of how that is not so for many first world countries and I'm still waiting for the reason behind your statement.

 

[scott91575]

I know you said to keep the America-bashing to a minimum, but that's really at the crux of this issue. We are not a democracy. We are a plutocracy. This isn't really up for debate. People with money get things done, and they do for themselves and their interests - not for the good of the nation.

Privatizing health insurance is supposed to keep costs down, yet we have the highest health care costs in the world by an astounding margin. Why is that? To hear the insurance lobbyists tell it, we're not privatizing hard enough; too many restrictions, too much legislation aimed at limiting what providers can do. That's the problem, apparently. It's not that free market systems are subject to the whims of the wealthiest and most powerful among us. It's not that rich people have invariably attempted to "game" every single society they've lived since the dawn of fucking time.

It's the anti-free market legislation. Of course.

Sidebar: there's a reason why the vast majority of scientists are considered "liberal". You really can't employ America's modern conservative philosophies and the scientific method at the same time.

You do realize liberal and socialism do not go hand in hand, and neither does conservative with capitalism. In fact, in many countries, just the opposite would be true. A liberal in Australia is no the same as we think of a liberal in the US.

Liberal and conservative have a more social connotation in the US, and has little to do with health care.