I do see that as a little offensive, it doesn't admit the many benefits of public healthcare. That said, it can lead to huge delays and isn't the best way of doing things. Recently there was a court case here (Canada) about someone who went to the states because they couldn't get the treatment they needed. I don't remember who won, but I do think that private healthcare should be available for those who can afford it.

People who are against the idea of universal health care should consider reading these two links.

 

 

 

An article discussing a study of the role of medical bills in bankruptcy.

 

 

 

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2 ... study.html

 

 

 

The study referenced in the article.

 

 

 

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/co ... .w5.63/DC1

I have a legit issue with the 'free for all' care. It's equally crappy care for all. I have nice insurance because my dad's worked hard and gotten a nice job. I have type 1 diabetes. With it, you can have shots, use insulin pens, or use an insulin pump. I have an insulin pump, and it's amazing and has made my life a ton better. They cost about $4000 apiece (most insurances only cover one every four years, most pumps have a 4 year warranty). If I lived in the UK or Canada, I would have much worse care, and would still be on shots because of the huge waiting lists they have for government-provided medical devices. I was actually on the government-run child health care insurance thing for a month because of a gap in our insurance coverage when my dad switched jobs. It ended up being a fiasco, because while we still paid some for it (it was like $100 a month or something) they ended up giving us a year's coverage when I only needed it for 1 month. The state ended up paying for our normal copay on a ton of my pump supplies. If they ran it better it would work better.

 

 

 

Basically what I'm saying is that the US has a better health care system because the government doesn't run it. When the government gets mixed up in stuff, it dies. We still have insurance for older people, kids, and people with disabilities/etc. It generally covers the stuff that needs to be covered. We don't need a new government run health care system. It'll fail and ruin many people's lives (-in my case, my dad's employer could choose to stop providing insurance, I would get stuck on state/fed health care, probably wouldn't be able to see my endo, not be able to afford a new insulin pump, and might not be able to afford the insulin (though I assume they would pay for that...))

 

 

 

OR, let the state provide free health care to the poor and you can pick a private doctor if you like. And don't provide the lame "too much taxes" excuse. We're wasting billions of dollars in weapons research and production, when we could use that money to aid, not harm, people.

 

 

 

It's not quite a waste considering that out there there are people who have the express intent to cause harm to us.

 

 

 

FYI, healthcare in America is not all that bad. A lot of uninsured people come from the fact that many people in lower-income groups would rather recieve a slightly larger paycheck than shell out a premium each month for their employer's health benefits. I saw it all the time when I worked in retail.

 

 

 

If we really want to make healthcare accessable to all, we need to tackle malpractice reform. It's too easy to sue doctors for trivial things. Working in the medical field, I've seen three possible lawsuits in my first week on the job for very small things that cause little to no harm. Make it harder to bring suit to medicine, lower malpractice insurance costs, bring the cost of healthcare down.

 

 

 

Why isn't this happening already? I think the fact that the majority of Congress and even our President are lawyers by trade and have many friends and supporters who helped them get into their positions who are also lawyers and attorneys. This isn't Crystalwingz type propaganda, it's a fair truth. It's not a conspiracy, it's simply "scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" politics that has been going on for hundreds of years.

 

 

 

As for taxes, we are talking about increasing taxes for middle and upper-class families from 18% average to 50-60%. That's extreme. And the people getting taxed are likely not going to see the need for free healthcare.

 

 

 

The Democrats could find another way to pay for this bill, but they are too concerned with using their control over Congress before record-approval losses lead to a more balanced Congress in the next election. It's getting rammed through before it's ready. There's no way we should pass a trillion dollar legislation in less than a year. That's a hell of a lot of money.

 

 

 

What that money could be better spent on? How about creating programs to provide tax incentives for healthy families? The reason that lower-classes pay so much on medicine is because they suffer from the most debilitating illnesses like cancer and diabetes simply because they do not take care of themselves. Excessive smoking and eating of unhealthy foods causes a lot of harm to health.

 

 

 

How about providing incentives for fast food chains to make all of their food more healthy, or support Weight Watchers and provide nutritional information in all public restaurants? Educate people on how unhealthy habits (like eating expensive and unhealthy fast food, or smoking) can cost a lot of money not only to satisfy it's demand, but in treating it's consequences. You can provide a day's worth of food for a person (I mean a hearty satisfying meal that's fairly healthy and nutritious) for the cost of a combo meal at Wendy's.

 

 

 

Two ways to prevent healthcare from causing bankruptcy: be healthier and spend less money (so you have more to spend on healthcare). What's awesome is that you CAN do both at the same time! If people would be smarter instead of relying on the government to babysit them, everyone can be happy.

I'm not posting this as as angry Canadian - I'm just stating my personal experience with our health care system (which, apparently, has too much delays)

 

 

 

1- I broke my arm in the 8th grade. I was rushed to the hospital, but had to wait 20 minutes until someone actually cared for me. If I was a complete jerk-off like so many Canadians, I'd go on a campaign for better health care - yet I got exceptional service by 2 expert doctors and it cost my family nothing.

 

The exact same thing happened to me, and I waited in the ER in excess of 2 hours with a broken wrist and a gash in my knee. And then the nurse was a [puncture] and somehow, despite the anesthesia, managed to hurt me during my knee stitches. And I'm in America.

I'm not posting this as as angry Canadian - I'm just stating my personal experience with our health care system (which, apparently, has too much delays)

 

 

 

1- I broke my arm in the 8th grade. I was rushed to the hospital, but had to wait 20 minutes until someone actually cared for me. If I was a complete jerk-off like so many Canadians, I'd go on a campaign for better health care - yet I got exceptional service by 2 expert doctors and it cost my family nothing.

 

The exact same thing happened to me, and I waited in the ER in excess of 2 hours with a broken wrist and a gash in my knee. And then the nurse was a [puncture] and somehow, despite the anesthesia, managed to hurt me during my knee stitches. And I'm in America.

 

Yea I used to work in an ER, the waiting period is terrible. I saw a guy with an accidental stab wound in the leg who was literally dripping blood on the floor... and he had to wait for a good 20 minutes.

 

 

 

People confuse the waiting necessary with socialized health care.

 

Socialized health care means you often have to wait for surgeries and routine check ups. This is because everyone gets preemptive medicine and gets checkups frequently since its free. The ER is then there for real emergencies.

 

 

 

Capitalistic health care means people don't go to the doctor's office or the hospital that often, they don't want to pay for it. However they eventually get sick and then have to enter the healthcare system at the most expensive level: the ER. This means the ER is clogged with patients that have problems that would have been avoided if they had gone to their doctors years ago, but didn't since they didn't want to pay the money back then.

 

 

 

Capitalistic health care = No real waiting time for surgery and doctor's visits, but the ER is overflowing and delayed.

 

Socialized health care = Long lines for surgery and doctor's visits, but the ER is there and ready to take emergencies.

 

 

 

I think I would prefer the latter.

Hence why America's healthcare system needs education rather than a very disruptive change that will raise taxes and the price of privatized healthcare. Seriously, a checkup is like 200 a year and many hospitals (especially those built on Christian principles) will offer free medication in the form of samples given by drug representatives. The doctors are also more than happy to recommend generic drugs to further save money.

 

 

 

The problem is not only that Americans are unhealthy in many regards, but that they wait until the last minute to get things checked out. But again, this is something that can be solved without screwing over a lot of people who do have access to insurance and prefer private doctors.

With a hybrid of the two systems things would work out fine. If you've got a brain tumor, you pay your insanely high fees and you live. If you have a far less serious problem, you wait until they have an opening and then you get it "free."

 

 

 

Of course every rich person will [bleep] and moan about how their hard earned money should be able to sit around in a bank account or go into buying a ridiculously in-efficient car while people who work 3 jobs can't afford to pay their families medical bills.

 

 

 

As Racheya posted, in the UK we have a public healthcare system, but that hasn't stopped private companies setting themselves up for people who want the best and most convenient service. Rich people can still receive better care than everyone else.

 

 

 

 

 

The incentives are all wrong in the US. Insurance companies try to find excuses not to give treatment because it costs them money. Doctors charge high prices to insurance companies because it's not as if the insurance company can take their patient elsewhere. Patients find any excuse to sue their doctor because they get massive payouts. That means that doctors charge even more because they have to get expensive malpractice insurance. Pharmaceutical companies market their products to the public by scaring them into thinking that they are ill, because they know that doctors are under pressure to do whatever their patient thinks they want, and since the insurance company has to pay for it it's not as if the doctor cares. Firms that provide medical insurance have an incentive to scale it back as much as they can. No one cares about the health of normal people because there's no money in telling people not to eat junk food and smoke, so it's left up to individual people to be doctors and understand the medical literature on how to be healthy.

 

 

 

This is from a 2008 report in the BMJ:

 

The United States ranked last across a range of measures of health care in a comparison of 19 industrialised countries, despite spending more than twice as much per person on health as any other of the countries, says a report published last week.

 

 

 

The only advantage with the US system that I can see is that more medical research is done since there is a lot of money to be made. As someone said, I imagine that this goes some way to explaining why the odd rich foreign person goes to the US to get the latest treatment. I can't say that this would be a priority for me if I was a US citizen though.... Even then though, the answer that the research gives is always going to be "use our slightly better patented drug" because other potential solutions don't make them money. Still, I do appreciate the irony in the fact that Americans don't want to pay for their neighbour's healthcare, but they're happy to fund the rest of the world's medical research :thumbup:

Are you [bleep]in stupid.

 

 

 

Good grief, thats just as bad a case for Anti Canada, as saying Obama is sub human for swatting a fly on TV as a Peta representative said.

 

 

 

What they're saying is, (and yes, I've seen that on tv a lot) the lines in Hospitals are ridiculously and pointlessly long and unneccesary. Imagine waiting in a line like the DMT just to get a shot, and get [cabbage]ty service, because to the doctors, you're just another person. What's wrong with our healthcare system now.

 

 

 

P.S. Don't bother responding to this, I won't check back on this topic, for more e-hate for my beliefs.

What's wrong with our healthcare system now.

 

 

 

What's wrong with our healthcare system now is that the lowest working class are simply unable to afford health insurance or the procedures they need without health insurance.

 

And to whatever idiot said we were spending to much on weapons research, stfu. Anything to prevent americans dying.

 

Yeah, a self-guiding-missile launching robot would protect us better than background checks and radar. :roll:

I'm not posting this as as angry Canadian - I'm just stating my personal experience with our health care system (which, apparently, has too much delays)

 

 

 

1- I broke my arm in the 8th grade. I was rushed to the hospital, but had to wait 20 minutes until someone actually cared for me. If I was a complete jerk-off like so many Canadians, I'd go on a campaign for better health care - yet I got exceptional service by 2 expert doctors and it cost my family nothing.

 

The exact same thing happened to me, and I waited in the ER in excess of 2 hours with a broken wrist and a gash in my knee. And then the nurse was a [puncture] and somehow, despite the anesthesia, managed to hurt me during my knee stitches. And I'm in America.

 

Something like that happened to me. Broke my collarbone once, 2 hour wait. Then I sprained my ankle and got a 3 hour wait. Canada > america IMO. And to whatever idiot said we were spending to much on weapons research, stfu. Anything to prevent americans dying.

 

"anything to prevent americans dying"? Why is it then that in America if people are unlucky enough to get cancer they are often given massive medical bills due to insurance refusing to pay out, and people with genetic problems unable to get insurance in the first place? Whereas in most of the civilised world they wouldn't need to worry about medical bills or insurance.

I honestly think that BOTH options is the right way.

 

 

 

I think it's ignorant and stuck-up to suggest everyone should pay to stay alive. I think that free healthcare should be acessible to EVERYONE. But If you don't like waiting and can afford it then by all means go to a private GP or something.

 

 

 

I like the UK health system. Practically it needs a lot of improvement, but I like knowing that if I were to have an accident or my mum were to have another epileptic fit then we won't be financially crippled because of it.

Wait, they insulted Canada?

 

...Ready the beavers.

 

 

 

(For the record, I'm canadian)

 

"anything to prevent americans dying"? Why is it then that in America if people are unlucky enough to get cancer they are often given massive medical bills due to insurance refusing to pay out,

 

 

 

Such things do not happen "often" - an insurance company refusing to fulfill their contract with their customer is extremely rare. Most arguments come up when people want to try new experimental treatments that have no record. (treatments not available in the first place).

 

 

 

and people with genetic problems unable to get insurance in the first place? Whereas in most of the civilised world they wouldn't need to worry about medical bills or insurance.

 

 

 

It's illegal in the US to discriminate against people due to genetic problems - you can't be denied insurance or have your premiums increased.

 

 

 

 

 

I saw the commercial, and I laughed at it; knowing that it's true. My aunt is a doctor, and when she moved to Canada temporarily a few years ago she was ALWAYS complaining about the system up there - times to see many types of specialists were insane, on the order of six months or more, with similar problems for the use of equipment like MRI's.

So uh.. where's the part where she says how much she paid and how long it will take her to pay it off? Useless to point out the bad sides of a new system where there are equally bad sides to the current one.

I don't see why both public and private medical care can't work side by side. People still have the choice to go private for an improved service while those who can't afford it can stay on the minimum public healthcare scheme. That way it is still a two tier system - those who can pay for the extras and those who can't which is better than having a system whereby; those who can pay will pay and those who can't pay will have to hope they're near a free clinic or hope for the best. Access to healthcare should be a fundamental human right in my opinion, some things are more important than the almighty dollar and the ideals of capitalism.

 

 

 

I hate many things about the UK but we can be proud that we have the NHS, it is probably the country's crowning achievement of the last 100 years. It is comforting to know that if I pass out in the street I can and will be taken to the nearest hospital and treated for my condition without the need for a 'wallet biopsy' (a disgusting euphemism in my opinion) in the ambulance. Is the NHS perfect? Far from it but it is still a remarkable achievement.

 

What that money could be better spent on? How about creating programs to provide tax incentives for healthy families? The reason that lower-classes pay so much on medicine is because they suffer from the most debilitating illnesses like cancer and diabetes simply because they do not take care of themselves. Excessive smoking and eating of unhealthy foods causes a lot of harm to health.

 

 

 

How about providing incentives for fast food chains to make all of their food more healthy, or support Weight Watchers and provide nutritional information in all public restaurants? Educate people on how unhealthy habits (like eating expensive and unhealthy fast food, or smoking) can cost a lot of money not only to satisfy it's demand, but in treating it's consequences. You can provide a day's worth of food for a person (I mean a hearty satisfying meal that's fairly healthy and nutritious) for the cost of a combo meal at Wendy's.

 

 

 

Two ways to prevent healthcare from causing bankruptcy: be healthier and spend less money (so you have more to spend on healthcare). What's awesome is that you CAN do both at the same time! If people would be smarter instead of relying on the government to babysit them, everyone can be happy.

 

 

 

Most of the time it's due to not taking care of yourself. In many people's cases (mine and my cousin's) it's not. Type 1 diabetes is due to genetic predisposition and is not preventable. But I do definitely agree with the rest of what you said... Plus some of the money that's being saved/spent on healthcare could go to research by way of healthcare (experimental trials, new treatments, etc)

I don't see why both public and private medical care can't work side by side.

 

The main problem is that doctors will only go to Private companies for employment. The government pays for their education (around 100,000$ CAD for a general doc) and they go off either to private Canadian companies or to the US. It creates a huge money deficit and a shortage of general doctors, because specialists in Canada are still relatively well payed.

It's illegal in the US to discriminate against people due to genetic problems - you can't be denied insurance or have your premiums increased.

 

This is misleading/wrong. An insurance company can't discriminate against someone if they have say a gene which gives them a much higher chance of getting prostate cancer, but they can discriminate against people who have actual diseases/problems caused by genetics.

It's illegal in the US to discriminate against people due to genetic problems - you can't be denied insurance or have your premiums increased.

 

This is misleading/wrong. An insurance company can't discriminate against someone if they have say a gene which gives them a much higher chance of getting prostate cancer, but they can discriminate against people who have actual diseases/problems caused by genetics.

 

 

 

I think calling that discrimination is implying the wrong thing. The point of an insurance company is to make money. If they are forced to insure people with conditions that will always cause a loss, then they won't make money. Of course, insurance companies shouldn't be able to scan your genes and deny you based upon slight risk genes; but if someone is already affected by a disease the company can't profit and as such won't insure them. It would be like making the insurance company give you fire insurance after your house is torched.

Ah, it's moments like this when I like Ameri-bashers.

 

 

 

Let's take a look at two people. Person A and Person B.

 

 

 

Person A earns over $100k a year, and can afford great health care, and can afford to pay that extra dollar for that bandage. Person A is a complete arse in real life, and he's been charged with assault and hooliganism at football games.

 

 

 

Person B earns less than $30k a year, she's in debt, and she can barely afford to feed her family, never mind pay for healthcare. And also, this person does charitable work for countless charities. She does sponsered runs, etc.

 

 

 

This is the result of capitalism, which I despise, but let's move on.

 

 

 

If we have a free healthcare system, (the NHS where I live for example), then shouldn't private practices be allowed to live on for the people who can afford them, whereas there'll be these free healthcare systems for those who don't?

 

 

 

sorry about this poor argument. I'm slightly drunk and at a party while thumbing this on my iPhone.

If you're smart you can make less than 30K a year and not be in debt and be able to afford health care (see Dave Ramsey). While there are lots of people who are complete arses and make lots of money, there are tons of people who AREN'T. Bill Gates, the guys who started Amway, tons of other (filthy rich) people give millions to charities every year, and set up new ones to help people.

 

 

 

I'll use my family as an example. My dad is a software developer. I'm not sure how much he makes, but I'm pretty sure it's less than 100k. My mom is a teacher's aide, she makes about 10k in a school year. My dad's employer offers great health care as a benefits package (part of his pay is used to pay for our insurance, it's like 12k a year I think...). I have type 1 diabetes, and am on an insulin pump along with a prescription for 5 blood glucose tests a day (a vial of test strips is $50 for 25 of them. the insulin pump is $4k-5k, and insulin is $250 per 100mL vial, of which I use about 4 a month. that doesn't include the infusion sets, pump cartridges, and various other things)... If we didn't have good insurance (aka was on Medicaid/Children's Special Health), I would have worse control (would still be on shots, but still with the $250 vials of insulin) and would be more at risk in the future for complications. I am an active Girl Scout and I volunteer after school in a kindergarten classroom. I do a lot of volunteering through the Girl Scouts with their different opportunities. My brother's in Boy Scouts and does a fair bit of volunteering as well. We raise money every year for JDRF (the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation) and last year we raised about 2k (plus we donated at least $500). We donate our time to help with after school programs for at-risk kids, and provide childcare for parent workshops in our school district. My GS troop has a park we pick up.

 

 

 

Anyway, I guess what I mean to say is, not everyone fits into a stereotype... And that companies need to lower their costs... Though the reason prescriptions are so high are so the companies make profit to do more research, but the billing system the insurance/drug companies run is seriously screwed up. There's a base price that I would pay if I didn't have any health insurance (we'll go with the test strips. $50 a vial). With my insurance, I pay a copay ($15) which goes to the pharmacy. Then the bill is sent to the insurance company, and the price is lowered on that bill from the MSRP (to like $30 a vial). Then they don't pay what we paid in the copay... I honestly don't know. It's just a mess, and I probably explained this wrong here. If you know how it works in the US I'd be interested to find out. Though it probably varies by insurer.

It's illegal in the US to discriminate against people due to genetic problems - you can't be denied insurance or have your premiums increased.

 

This is misleading/wrong. An insurance company can't discriminate against someone if they have say a gene which gives them a much higher chance of getting prostate cancer, but they can discriminate against people who have actual diseases/problems caused by genetics.

 

 

 

I think calling that discrimination is implying the wrong thing. The point of an insurance company is to make money. If they are forced to insure people with conditions that will always cause a loss, then they won't make money. Of course, insurance companies shouldn't be able to scan your genes and deny you based upon slight risk genes; but if someone is already affected by a disease the company can't profit and as such won't insure them. It would be like making the insurance company give you fire insurance after your house is torched.

 

That's a fundamental problem with our health care system in America. Born with a disease that will cost you and your family a large amount of money over a life time, well sucks for you.

 

 

 

The other problem is that insurance companies should not be out there to make huge profits. Insurance exists for the purpose to spread risk among a large group of people. If you can afford health insurance you could just as well afford checkups and minor health issues which arise from time to time, but you likely can't afford a catastrophic health issue, which is what insurance exists to protect you from. Insurance companies should not have to take an overall loss, but there is no reason health insurance should be run as a for profit business.

US already spends more on health care per capita than every other country. But because of how corrupt and broken their health care works the rich gets richer and a good portion of the people still dont have insurance.

I don't know where you guys get some of these ideas.

 

 

 

Most private hospitals in the United States (and almost all hospital systems) are not-for-profit because they get tax breaks. They only make enough money to pay personnel and to upgrade equipment. Most private hospitals are owned or supervised by religious organizations (the hospital system I work for is run by the Sisters of the Holy Family of Nazareth) and provide FREE HEALTH CARE to anyone who can't pay for hospital bills. I mean seriously, they are generous.

 

 

 

The doctors at private healthcare systems usually work for modest salaries (80-110k a year) and enjoy doing what they do, and providing the best care they can. At least the ones here do their best to prescribe generic prescriptions to save patients money, because a happy patient is one who comes back in the future.

 

 

 

The evil "money grubbing greedy capitalist" doctors are those who have their own private practices, and these are not the guys who work at hospitals. They generally have their own clinics and specialize in something very specific, and therefore people pay extremely high prices.

 

 

 

Any decent Hospital in the United States is going to offer free flu shots, free neonatal and prenatal care, trauma, and other essential care. Insurance companies will also insure almost anyone (and if they won't take you, another company will). The only people who can not find insurance are those who either do not pay the fees and get blacklisted, or people who simply neglect to pay the fees when their place of employance offers them medical benefits.

 

 

 

People often speak about how the lower classes and those in poverty don't have enough money to get by. However, would you believe that the people who spend the most money on frivalous purchases (going to the movies, eating out at medium grade restaurants, cell phones, etc) are in these lower classes? You'll learn all about the phenomenon in psychology classes, but people with less income feel more inclined to spend on luxuries and the vast majority of advertising done by companies is directed at this demographic. There's plenty of money to go around in jobs to pay $150 a month to cover entire families with medical insurance. But many people simply choose to forgo these benefits in order to gain instant gratification.

 

 

 

Cost of smoking cigarettes in one month (moderate use): $575 (that's being light, I've seen lower class people smoke a hell of a lot more).

 

Cost of medical insurance for an entire family (regardless of size) from the Kroger chain of grocery stores: $180 a month.

 

 

 

Tell me there's not enough money to get health insurance, I dare you.

 

 

 

Let's put a 300% tax on cigs and use that to fund healthcare reform.

 

 

 

And please (I just read the most recent post before this) do not demonize doctors because a handful of private practicioners charge high prices. The vast majority of medical professionals in this country (who work in hospitals and affiliated clinics) are some of the kindest and sweetest people I have ever met. They do what they are doing because they earnestly care in helping others and following their Oath.

 

 

 

There is also a difference between privatized healthcare and private practicioners. Private healthcare is simply any non-local funded entity. For example, here in Tyler Texas, we have Trinity Mother Frances Hospital and Clinics and the East Texas Medical Center. The former is a privately owned hospital while the second is a locally funded public hospital. Both provide low-cost and free services to patients. In fact, the private hospital is more generous with free care than the public one.

 

 

 

Also, any child under 18 is eligible for Medicaid and any adult over 60 Medicare. These greatly alleviate healthcare costs for the demographics that require the most need for medicine.

 

 

 

I mean seriously guys, if you are going to demonize these institutions, you need to do your own research instead of listening to idiots with an agenda (ala Michael Moore). I'm not saying the healthcare industry in America is perfect (because dear God does it need help and some major infrastructure changes), but it is not a greedy system for the rich. I think that with reform to the existing system, laws regarding medicine (like malpractice laws), and reform in the insurance industry, we can provide healthcare to all without screwing over half the population and raising healthcare costs for those who would prefer private medicine.