Canadian–> I like our system and to respond to DRS’s post I have never had a wait that wasnt reasonable or out of proportion to my injury…if I have a broken collarbone and wait 5 hours but people with huge cuts and heart attacks go ahead who am I to complain? The specialists and other treatments may be available faster in the U.S but thats only to the few who have huge HMO coverage, if I was a U.S citizen i would be able to get fully covered but what about the millions who are poor or middle class and cant afford it? thats pretty rediculous to let people die because they cant afford it. The U.S can afford it, just get rid of one of your battle groups or get out of Iraq…im sure with focusing on securing the borders and having smaller fast response teams security would stay the same and you could afford health care…you are the richest country in the world and every other first world country can afford it.
The US’s system does not work efficiently. Example: Nasty car crash results in critical injuries. The EMT’s are not going to dig through pockets looking for insurance cards. They take them right in. If this person does not have funds, the hospital is out the money. Aside from that example, malpractice is a nightmare every doctor has. Also moral hazard with medical insurance. People use their insurance every visit to the doctor. Insurance should be used as a risk management for emergencies; not to save a few bucks when they need their flu shot. To those of you who have seen the movie John Q, that brings up even more dilemas.
Is the US system perfect? Far from it. But we all know the famous quote about capitalism “it’s the worst except for all the others”, to paraphrase. Having this argument with many is like arguing against a free monthly paycheck for all citizens. That’d be nice too, no? Maybe the government should make sure everyone has a cell phone. I mean everyone needs one, yes? And haircuts, certainly no one can get a good job if they cant afford a decent haircut. The third wednesday of every month will be free haircut day. Obviously I’ve taken this to the extreme but the point is that the end of the day it is simply a difference in ideology. I am a firm believer in personal responsibility and ultimate capitalism–leave your cave, kill something, drag it home. And don’t interfere with my kill. Sorry if you’re lazy. Healthcare is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. Those who disagree, simply disagree. The same way they do about 30 other issues. And don’t get me started on unions or income tax…
Look at it this way - the US accounts for 75% of global pharma profits. By that I infer that the US is getting screwed by its current system (US life expectancy is lower than in most industrialised countries). I hope the US sticks to its guns b/c the US is subsidising every other country by single-handedly providing an incentive for medical innovation which is then exported across the world. On a more humanist note, I live in the UK, where we have a national health service. I have full private med cover, so seldom have anything to do with it. And yet I can stomach paying for it, partly b/c it’s not as expensive as meets the eye (it’s generally cheaper to pay to keep someone healthy than forego their prospective contribution to society) and b/c I think it’s the right thing. I do wish, however, that the UK system was more efficient. The NHS is the country’s biggest employer (c. 1.1million people). I think that is out of line with France, Germany, etc. My $0.02.
HighestLearning, I think we are on the same page here. I dont know much but I know this. Everyday I walk down to convenience store to grab a beverage and a snack. The line for the lotto is literally out the door everyday all the time. 90% of the line are ppl who clearly are on welfare. These are the poor who cant afford health care but they can afford lotto tickets and a two pack a day smoking habit. I am sick of all of this liberal nonsense. How about ppl take accountability for themsevles. Now I am not saying someone should die because they are poor. I guess it would have to be case specific. The middle class bears all the burden in this country and probably always will. I dont have the solution but I belive 100% that social healthcare is far from it. Sorry, I get a little fired up sometimes.
You may have heard this before, but it’s one of my favorites: Lotto: (noun) a tax on people who are bad at math.
HighestLearning Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is the US system perfect? Far from it. But we all > know the famous quote about capitalism “it’s the > worst except for all the others”, to paraphrase. > Having this argument with many is like arguing > against a free monthly paycheck for all citizens. > That’d be nice too, no? Maybe the government > should make sure everyone has a cell phone. I mean > everyone needs one, yes? And haircuts, certainly > no one can get a good job if they cant afford a > decent haircut. The third wednesday of every month > will be free haircut day. > > Obviously I’ve taken this to the extreme but the > point is that the end of the day it is simply a > difference in ideology. I am a firm believer in > personal responsibility and ultimate > capitalism–leave your cave, kill something, drag > it home. And don’t interfere with my kill. Sorry > if you’re lazy. Healthcare is a PRIVILEGE, not a > right. Those who disagree, simply disagree. The > same way they do about 30 other issues. And don’t > get me started on unions or income tax… Well said…
I like the health care system in the People’s Republic of China. It’s both a right and a privilege there. 
If we can afford a multi-billion dollar war, we can afford a little health care for the under privileged…
For me, the Canadian system is not socialist enough as it does not include ambulances. I have been involved in the situation where someone half-dead is forced to sign a credit card slip for $2000 for the ambulance transfer. I like the UK system of being free at the point of delivery. No talk of money ever. However, the UK needs to spend far more money. I believe the US spends twice as much per capita on health as the UK and the level of service in the UK shows this.
I feel you, that’s tough. It’s a shame you even have to go to work in the morning. Or pay your electric bill. Or food even! Heartless bastard government. There should be places where you can get hot meals, shower, and a bed for no charge. I know, we’ll call them shelters! Brilliant! Marx would be so proud of me.
HighestLearning Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I feel you, that’s tough. It’s a shame you even > have to go to work in the morning. Or pay your > electric bill. Or food even! Heartless bastard > government. There should be places where you can > get hot meals, shower, and a bed for no charge. I > know, we’ll call them shelters! Brilliant! Marx > would be so proud of me. Instead of spouting puritanical non-sense, just explain to me why US health spending as a % of GDP is higher than in other industrialised countries, when the US fails to measure up on KPIs (life expectancy, preventable deaths etc etc.). Perhaps it’s that you need to grow up a little and look at the facts instead of just regurgitating free market dictum. Its not socialist ideology; its largely self-serving. Think of the economics. Its usually cheaper to treat a patient for free so that he can get back to “full productivity” than to let him languish. Worrying about whether you will be able to afford medical treatment detracts from other productive activities (i.e. work). Free healthcare also affords a greater level of risk-taking (entrepreneurship). If I ruled the world, free universal healthcare and very, very low unemployment benefits - you CAN work, so you HAVE to work.
does anyone really believe that universal healthcare is really “free”? free to whom? its only free to those who can’t afford it on their own. for those who earn money and pay taxes, it certainly isn’t free. and the more money you make the less free it becomes. i can’t rememeber the exact numbers but the richest 50% pay like 90-95% of the taxes in the US. so, if you’re in that group, you’ll see your taxes go up MUCH more than you’ll ever see your cost of healthcare go down. now i don’t think anyone will pretend that the US model is perfect; that’s why we hear so much about reform, me included. i just don’t think letting government come in, take my money, and hope it filters through the political process (as an aside, i prefer a profit motive to a political motive any day) in a way that will help those who can’t afford healthcare (the number of those who can’t afford healthcare isn’t the same as those without healthcare; those who use the without healthcare number use the high number for its shock value) without catering to favored parties (read: campaign contributors) is the right idea. i don’t trust government’s ability to get the job done.
I think a lot of the basic “catch a flu,” “break a bone,” stuff should be free or very low cost (never had an issue with copayments), but I don’t think that whether you’re employed full-time with a single company should be the difference between whether you pay $10/visit or $700/visit, or whether you pay $50/month out of your earnings vs. $500/month for insurance. If poor folks don’t go to the doctor because they are worried they can’t afford it, then it makes the entire society more vulnerable to epidemics like what we worry about with airborne bird flu. If one were an al-qaeda operative trying to spread smallpox or something… it would make sense to hang out in some of the poorest communities in the US, so that lots of people would get it and spread it around before the medical establishment even knew it was out there. There is a legitimate public defense purpose in trying to keep the population healthy, and putting roadblocks to the diagnosis centers is just silly. Remember that all of that 30% or so that the average american spends on health care all goes into the GDP figure, so the perverse logic of that is that the sicker we are and the more we pay doctors, the richer we look on a per/capita GDP basis. You shave that much off of the GDP figure, and all of a sudden, the Europeans don’t look so much poorer than we are… they just look healthier. The real financial questions on national insurance have to do with who gets the super new technological life-saving treatments, like organ transplants, and (admittedly not life-saving) hip replacements, chronic drug therapy, and things like that. I’m not sure how I feel about public versus private funds for things like that, and where exactly one draws the line, but I think the basic stuff should definitely be free.
again, if its free (or subsidized and consequently very low cost) who pays for it? the government, right? who pays for the government? we do, through taxes, or our kids and grandkids do, through borrowing. and why exactly should these basic ailments definitely be “free”? why should these things be provided when other, i would argue more fundamental “rights” (if you do believe healthcare is a right), are left unprovided? i would argue that making sure everyone is fed is more important than making sure everyone has healthcare. shelter, running water, and electricity maybe as well. we should make sure that we have universal food before we have universal healthcare. maybe we should have the government take these industries over as well and become the single payer for our food.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Question to non-US posters in developed countries > with national health care systems (which I think > means all other developed countries): > > Do you think your “socialist healthcare systems” > should be dismantled and replaced with an > american-style one? No, I don’t, and I don’t refer to it as ‘socialist’ either, I would just refer to it as ‘the healthcare system’. You pay up to $170 + medicine (part of amount) out of your own pocket, and if you fall ill more time during the year, the system picks up the bill. About your system, part of it is called ‘Medicare’, right? Why do you suddenly provide health insurance coverage to people who are age 65 and over?? Why don’t you just let them manage by themselves and simply check out permanently, so to speak, if they don’t have the funds for it (from, say, private savings)? That’s so puzzling to me. If people have had to manage before 65, why do you suddenly change a ‘winning concept’? Some old and grumpy guy cannot produce anything, why not simply let them rely on charity or alms-giving if they can’t manage?
OK, I don’t refer to it as “socialist healthcare” (my mother always called it “civilized” healthcare), but some people on this forum seemed to think that having the government involved in helping keep the population healthy was just one step down the slippery slope to jackboots and re-education camps, so I put it in the title to be a little provocative. I’m sorry, we have jackboots in Iraq and Afghanistan and in our airports and train stations already and guantamo and phone taps without warrants… if I’m going to put up with that, darn it, why can’t I put up with a little civilized healthcare. To mlh97, I do realize that “free” health care means that one pays taxes to cover it. I just meant that if you got some bug, you’d go and get it looked at before going out and spreading antibiotic resistant TB to everyone on the subway, instead of not going to the doctor for as long as you can because you work two jobs as a dishwasher at a public restaurant at minimum wage without benefits and can’t afford a $500 doctor’s visit. It would be free (or inexpensive, I am not insisting on 100% free) to the user, not to society as a whole.
i agree that socialist isn’t the right word. i would, though, say that socialized is an appropriate way to describe it, despite some others who have commented on this thread to the contrary. according to the american heritage dictionary (via dictionary.com) socialized means “place[d] under government or group ownership or control.” it doesn’t have to be the entire healthcare system under government ownership to be socialized. but i understand why some don’t want to use that term, so nationalized works fine. you probably think i’m being picky by singling out one word, but i don’t think i am. for those who want a single-payer system, they have to sell it to the masses. i just think saying that it’s “free” is misleading. in order for one person to have “free” healthcare, someone else has to pay for it.
I never want to work again because I am exceptionally lazy. I wish the goverment would pay for that. Oh wait, they already do…