Healthcare Systems

[fiksal]

I really don't get why some american is so scared by free healthcare.

As I learned many Americans don't think the government should provide for its citizens. It shouldn't take care of elderly or disabled, shouldn't use taxes for education, or healthcare. Anyone who doesn't have money to afford the previous is weak and undeserving.

Such a reaction is akin to a result of a trauma caused by living in fear from unseen and powerful (and imaginary) forces, like Communism.

[PaperDog]

I really don't get why some american is so scared by free healthcare.

As I learned many Americans don't think the government should provide for its citizens. It shouldn't take care of elderly or disabled, shouldn't use taxes for education, or healthcare. Anyone who doesn't have money to afford the previous is weak and undeserving.

Such a reaction is akin to a result of a trauma caused by living in fear from unseen and powerful (and imaginary) forces, like Communism.

Many Americans see how bad the system is in Canada and the UK. Sure, you can get all the free aspirin or metformin you want, but trying getting a liver replacement in a timely fashion (while waiting in a long line) . Worse yet, is that Canada , U.S. and UK ALL have to face a fraud-waste-and abuse problem. (Costing billions annually). They don't talk about that because each nations' arms of leadership would stand to lose out on personal enrichment. I wonder how long the sympathy would last, if the subscribers of "free" healthcare were ordered to pay for the care of the elderly down the street, but for their own elderly. In other words, when did it become a thing to require the givernemnt to do what we always could be doing for our own.

[PaperDog]

I really don't get why some american is so scared by free healthcare.

Because "free healthcare" is not free.

Yes, We all want the right thing, we just don't agree on how to obtain it. It would be less complex, if we didn't have to worry about the vultures (who dream up and shove these programs these programs down our throats to support their own agenda of personal enrichment off the rest of us.) We simply don't "trust" the idiots who want to be in charge of these "noble" humanitarian projects.

[RegisterMe]

Many Americans see how bad the system is in Canada and the UK. Sure, you can get all the free aspirin or metformin you want, but trying getting a liver replacement in a timely fashion (while waiting in a long line) .

That's complete codswallop. Here's some actual data for you on the UK:-

https://www.odt.nhs.uk/statistics-and-r ... ty-report/

The limiting factor on liver transplants is, not surprisingly, the number of livers available.


Oh yeah, and it's free to the recipient. Of course, it's not actually "free", it's paid for out of general taxation and National Insurance. But we like it that way, and we want it to stay that way. The NHS is far from perfect, and I probably wouldn't argue with you if you said that the best treatment available in the US might be better than the best treatment in the UK. But we don't leave a sizable proportion of our population with inadequate health care coverage(*) and the NHS is certainly cheaper (ie more efficient) on an outcomes basis.


* Our "social" care ie for the elderly and those who are incapable of caring for themselves is a long way from where it should be. Unfortunately I suspect the same is true everywhere .

[red assassin]

Many Americans see how bad the system is in Canada and the UK. Sure, you can get all the free aspirin or metformin you want, but trying getting a liver replacement in a timely fashion (while waiting in a long line) . Worse yet, is that Canada , U.S. and UK ALL have to face a fraud-waste-and abuse problem. (Costing billions annually). They don't talk about that because each nations' arms of leadership would stand to lose out on personal enrichment. I wonder how long the sympathy would last, if the subscribers of "free" healthcare were ordered to pay for the care of the elderly down the street, but for their own elderly. In other words, when did it become a thing to require the givernemnt to do what we always could be doing for our own.

Liver transplant waiting times are a baffling choice of metric here - it primarily reflects the availability of donor organs, not the functioning of the health service - but okay. UK average waiting time for an adult liver transplant: 135 days. US median waiting time for an adult liver transplant: 11.3 months.

Waste is of course an issue, but the US spends about 2.5 times as much per capita on healthcare as the UK and Canada, for outcomes that are generally equivalent or worse.

[PaperDog]

Many Americans see how bad the system is in Canada and the UK. Sure, you can get all the free aspirin or metformin you want, but trying getting a liver replacement in a timely fashion (while waiting in a long line) .

"Oh yeah, and it's free to the recipient. Of course, it's not actually "free", it's paid for out of general taxation and National Insurance. But we like it that way, and we want it to stay that way. The NHS is far from perfect, and I probably wouldn't argue with you if you said that the best treatment available in the US might be better than the best treatment in the UK. But we don't leave a sizable proportion of our population with inadequate health care coverage(*) and the NHS is certainly cheaper (ie more efficient) on an outcomes basis."

You are trying to sell me free healthcare by promising me that you will give me a liver for free. But conveniently enough, your pamphlets understate or even omit, the "supply" problem for livers... Its a con! If people actually grasped the reality of that situation (and get past the utopian fantasy) , your system would buckle... But they are being fed that "codswallop" you spoke of.

The reason the US has better treatment options (one being timely treatment) is because, under free enterprise, they also are able to assure better doctors. The economic research is there

I'm all for elderly care... (God knows they paid for it throughout their productive lives) , But it ain't viable social support until two simple problems are addressed and solved:

1) the "Price" of medicine. When did it become okay for medical associations to dictate the price of medicine and medical education such that prices have been raised to ridiculously lofty levels. Tell me, Would you pay 60.00 for an aspirin? Is it right?
2) Private hospitals. I cant even begin to describe the level of horseshit they spew out in the name of "cost". They are partially responsible for driving up the price of medicine. Simply put, ban admin agencies altogether. Allow doctors to practice without the fiscal encumbrance imposed upon them. Studies have shown that if left to a proper competitive environment, the best doctors will adapt to bearable markets. The minute the government or an admin puts its meat grubbing mits on that, it becomes a ****-all.

[fiksal]

Many Americans see how bad the system is in Canada and the UK. Sure, you can get all the free aspirin or metformin you want, but trying getting a liver replacement in a timely fashion (while waiting in a long line) . Worse yet, is that Canada , U.S. and UK ALL have to face a fraud-waste-and abuse problem. (Costing billions annually)

And many Canadians and Britains see how bad the system is in US. We can easily come up with counter examples when people in Canada get live saving surgey or drugs at reduced cost, and in America people just die without it, not being able to get GoFund me funds.

Cost-wise, the health care systems in both countries mentioned are nothing spectacular from what I recall, to tax payers. We can compare however.

I wonder how long the sympathy would last, if the subscribers of "free" healthcare were ordered to pay for the care of the elderly down the street, but for their own elderly.

I am glad you agree with my points then. Many Americans dont indeed have sympathy and empathy to their neighbors. They dont want to pay taxes to help them, build roads, parks, schools, etc etc.

[Mightysword]

As I learned many Americans don't think the government should provide for its citizens. It shouldn't take care of elderly or disabled, shouldn't use taxes for education, or healthcare. Anyone who doesn't have money to afford the previous is weak and undeserving.

That's just hyperbole. Sure, a segment of the population carry that "sentiment", but even among them it's not to that extreme. I have lived here for almost 20 years and I have never seen ONE person speak out against providing for the elderly. The arguments are usually centered around things like universal income, minimum wage ...etc... but when it get political it usually turn into an emotive argument like "shouldn't take of the elderly!!", I'm sorry but that's just a dishonest presentation, like how abortion argument usually get turned in "Satan is killing the babies!"

I really don't get why some american is so scared by free healthcare.

Just like with everything else, to understand the issue you need to view it from multiple angle. And sadly just like with most thing else, the "only" angle presented are the political one.

For me personally, it's not that I'm against universal healthcare, it's more I don't think that's the problem. Finding someone to pay for healthcare doesn't answer the question why the **** healthcare in the US is so expensive in the first place. Guess what, most countries in Asia (including the more developed nations) do not have universal healthcare, and that's not an issue. We pay out of pocket every time we visit doctor or take our prescription, the difference is it doesn't cost us an arm and a leg to do so.

Another thing is I don't understand why health insurance work the way it is in America. Like we have insurance over there too, but health insurance is more an emergency thing, like when you go to ER or have an operation. But you don't pull out your insurance for every damn thing! Like why don't it work like car insurance. Everyone have car insurance right, but do you use your insurance when you do oil change or having flat tired? House insurance don't get used on replacing your window or having someone snake your sewer line either.

Go back to the subject of cost, there are a lot of "excuse" for why it's so expensive. And you can tell that's an excuse. Remember the usual "reason" was oh a lot of people don't have insurance so hospital have to incure cost 'cause people can't pay. It'll go down if more people have insurance. We're in like what ... year 10 of Obama care, with a lot more people with coverage now and guess what, healthcare is still as expensive as it was before Obamacare! I got into an accident little over a year ago, and an evening in ER where I receive almost no treatment still came with a 10k+ bill, and that was a City hospital, not even a private one. **** that.

No finding someone else to pay for it (i.e government) doesn't solve any damn thing, and when it comes to government money it's just your money anyway. The greed and corruption on all level of the healthcare system is the problem, not the insurance coverage.

[Teladi CEO]

Here’s the issue with the US system.

Both of my parents had middle class jobs, my mom even worked for the government and Cornell. Despite this they struggled to afford my medical bills because we didn’t have a system to help us. Now complete nationalization of healthcare is an element Socialism. Which has many issues.

But if we don’t have healthcare there will be millions of Americans who can’t afford to pay for their child’s healthcare. Now, conservatives say their for the Middle Class, more taxes certainly aren’t going to handle help them. But having them struggle to even keep their son alive because they simply don’t have the money on them isn’t right either.

So what we need is a system in which Americans can get at least basic medical treatment without having to worry about going into debt. But we also need to have private health insurance for those who want it or can afford it.

The biggest issue is that no matter what the Middle Class will bear the weight of a healthcare system, something we can’t afford. Taxing the rich certainly isn’t going to depose every problem either.

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

I really don't get why some american is so scared by free healthcare.

Because "free healthcare" is not free.

Yes, We all want the right thing, we just don't agree on how to obtain it. It would be less complex, if we didn't have to worry about the vultures (who dream up and shove these programs these programs down our throats to support their own agenda of personal enrichment off the rest of us.) We simply don't "trust" the idiots who want to be in charge of these "noble" humanitarian projects.

So, you don't trust politicians looking for votes, but you trust businessmen looking for money. You know what? The rich has money, but everyone's got a vote. What's the better way, then? Private (only if you have money you get your life saved) or public healthcare (only if you have voting rights* you get your life saved)?


*Which is not true, because in Italy, if you as an American break your ankle while skiing, you go to the hospital and nobody sends you a bill to your parents, or asks if you can cover the costs before he even lets you jump on the ambulance.

[RegisterMe]

Many Americans see how bad the system is in Canada and the UK. Sure, you can get all the free aspirin or metformin you want, but trying getting a liver replacement in a timely fashion (while waiting in a long line) .

"Oh yeah, and it's free to the recipient. Of course, it's not actually "free", it's paid for out of general taxation and National Insurance. But we like it that way, and we want it to stay that way. The NHS is far from perfect, and I probably wouldn't argue with you if you said that the best treatment available in the US might be better than the best treatment in the UK. But we don't leave a sizable proportion of our population with inadequate health care coverage(*) and the NHS is certainly cheaper (ie more efficient) on an outcomes basis."

You are trying to sell me free healthcare by promising me that you will give me a liver for free. But conveniently enough, your pamphlets understate or even omit, the "supply" problem for livers... Its a con! If people actually grasped the reality of that situation (and get past the utopian fantasy) , your system would buckle... But they are being fed that "codswallop" you spoke of.

The reason the US has better treatment options (one being timely treatment) is because, under free enterprise, they also are able to assure better doctors. The economic research is there

I'm all for elderly care... (God knows they paid for it throughout their productive lives) , But it ain't viable social support until two simple problems are addressed and solved:

1) the "Price" of medicine. When did it become okay for medical associations to dictate the price of medicine and medical education such that prices have been raised to ridiculously lofty levels. Tell me, Would you pay 60.00 for an aspirin? Is it right?
2) Private hospitals. I cant even begin to describe the level of horseshit they spew out in the name of "cost". They are partially responsible for driving up the price of medicine. Simply put, ban admin agencies altogether. Allow doctors to practice without the fiscal encumbrance imposed upon them. Studies have shown that if left to a proper competitive environment, the best doctors will adapt to bearable markets. The minute the government or an admin puts its meat grubbing mits on that, it becomes a ****.

Your argument is a little confused:-

1. Both red assassin and I pointed out that the limiting factor in the provision of liver transplants was the number of livers available for transplant. Amazingly enough if there's no liver available for transplant no costs are incurred by the individual or by the healthcare system to transplant a liver.
2. You state the the US has better treatment options (one being timely treatment). This is at best arguable. Take for example red assassin's point about the percentage of GDP spent on healthcare in the US and the UK respectively, and the "value" of the outcomes. Then there's the average treatment wait times in the two countries, and the availability of that treatment to, in the UK the entire population, in the US largely limited to those who can afford it (or a proxy, the cost of the insurance).
3. Please evidence your claim that US doctors are better.
4. You lament the public health care system in the UK and then criticise the private healthcare system in the US because of the cost of medicines. Well, in the UK, with is public healthcare system, prices paid to the pharma industry are agreed centrally and applied nationally. It is true that it's cheaper overall for the individual to by a box of a generic painkiller from the chemist than it is to get it via NHS subscription, but that's largely because of the cost of purchase and the admin associated with administering the subscription. The answer is for the individual to spend 50p on packet of paracetamol in a supermarket rather than get the same packet from the NHS which ends up spending £5 on it. The reverse is true when you're talking about more complicated and / or more dangerous drugs (which aren't available in the supermarket).
5. So public healthcare isn't the answer because "stuff", but private hospitals are the devil because they cost too much? Even when it's proven that public healthcare in the UK provides, across the whole population, better outcomes / $ spent than the private healthcare system in the US?
6. Lacking any regulation and / or competition the provision of any good will naturally tend towards the maximisation of profit, which will be a factor of cost of production on the one hand and the size of the market (essentially price * volume). In healthcare "price * volume" doesn't necessarily equate to the maximum number of people treated. In your description it's not the doctors that have to "adapt to bearable markets", but the patients who can't afford the care.

I don't think the NHS is perfect, and I think that private healthcare and competition have a part to play in the overall provision of healthcare. But in the UK we don't leave anybody behind. Treatment is free at the point of delivery. Healthcare is available to all, regardless of wealth.

[PaperDog]

As I learned many Americans don't think the government should provide for its citizens. It shouldn't take care of elderly or disabled, shouldn't use taxes for education, or healthcare. Anyone who doesn't have money to afford the previous is weak and undeserving.

That's just hyperbole. Sure, a segment of the population carry that "sentiment", but even among them it's not to that extreme. I have lived here for almost 20 years and I have never seen ONE person speak out against providing for the elderly. The arguments are usually centered around things like universal income, minimum wage ...etc... but when it get political it usually turn into an emotive argument like "shouldn't take of the elderly!!", I'm sorry but that's just a dishonest presentation, like how abortion argument usually get turned in "Satan is killing the babies!"

I really don't get why some american is so scared by free healthcare.

Just like with everything else, to understand the issue you need to view it from multiple angle. And sadly just like with most thing else, the "only" angle presented are the political one.

For me personally, it's not that I'm against universal healthcare, it's more I don't think that's the problem. Finding someone to pay for healthcare doesn't answer the question why the **** healthcare in the US is so expensive in the first place. Guess what, most countries in Asia (including the more developed nations) do not have universal healthcare, and that's not an issue. We pay out of pocket every time we visit doctor or take our prescription, the difference is it doesn't cost us an arm and a leg to do so.

Another thing is I don't understand why health insurance work the way it is in America. Like we have insurance over there too, but health insurance is more an emergency thing, like when you go to ER or have an operation. But you don't pull out your insurance for every damn thing! Like why don't it work like car insurance. Everyone have car insurance right, but do you use your insurance when you do oil change or having flat tired? House insurance don't get used on replacing your window or having someone snake your sewer line either.

Go back to the subject of cost, there are a lot of "excuse" for why it's so expensive. And you can tell that's an excuse. Remember the usual "reason" was oh a lot of people don't have insurance so hospital have to incure cost 'cause people can't pay. It'll go down if more people have insurance. We're in like what ... year 10 of Obama care, with a lot more people with coverage now and guess what, healthcare is still as expensive as it was before Obamacare! I got into an accident little over a year ago, and an evening in ER where I receive almost no treatment still came with a 10k+ bill, and that was a City hospital, not even a private one. **** that.

No finding someone else to pay for it (i.e. government) doesn't solve any damn thing, and when it comes to government money it's just your money anyway. The greed and corruption on all level of the healthcare system is the problem, not the insurance coverage.

All great points.

In the U.S. Insurance rates exist because the people in our congress finally figured out a way to shakedown agencies, who were trying to profit ( by means of getting people to place bets (aka pay premiums) against their own safety and wellness. Think about it; the only way to benefit from an insurance policy is to get sick or die. Anyone with a grade- school understanding of probabilities can tell you its a con job. Life has its catastrophes, but nothing like the insurance industry would have you believe. That said, Our congress has found a way to shake down the insurance companies... who now, "must" elevate payouts, to meet the frivolous demands of its beneficiaries; (by which congress extracts its portion (See how this works?) .
Witnessing this shakedown, Big Pharma decided to jump on the bandwagon, by raising the price of medicine...Under which, congressional rule (Influenced by Big Pharma lobbyists) dictates that Insurance companies must pay those prices.

In conclusion; The Healthcare industry is a game played by the sharks, of the sharks, for the sharks. What, you actually think they do this for the well being and safety of you and me?

[Vertigo 7]

In conclusion; The Healthcare industry is a game played by the sharks, of the sharks, for the sharks. What, you actually think they do this for the well being and safety of you and me?

I don't think you'll find anyone that disagrees with that assessment, which is precisely why some want to push to eliminate one pool of the sharks (private insurance). Can you honestly say that needing to chose between having a life saving/altering medical procedure or being able to pay rent is something that anyone should have to face, regardless of their income? And to be clear, I don't mean unnecessary cosmetic surgery like getting breast enhancements or face lifts or any of that kind of optional crap - I firmly say that anyone who wants that kind of procedure, they cough up the cash for it themselves.

And honestly, what does it matter where the insurance is pooled? Whether it's with BCBS or the Federal Government. The difference is the Feds won't look for excuses to deny coverage.

[PaperDog]

"Oh yeah, and it's free to the recipient. Of course, it's not actually "free", it's paid for out of general taxation and National Insurance. But we like it that way, and we want it to stay that way. The NHS is far from perfect, and I probably wouldn't argue with you if you said that the best treatment available in the US might be better than the best treatment in the UK. But we don't leave a sizable proportion of our population with inadequate health care coverage(*) and the NHS is certainly cheaper (ie more efficient) on an outcomes basis."

You are trying to sell me free healthcare by promising me that you will give me a liver for free. But conveniently enough, your pamphlets understate or even omit, the "supply" problem for livers... Its a con! If people actually grasped the reality of that situation (and get past the utopian fantasy) , your system would buckle... But they are being fed that "codswallop" you spoke of.

The reason the US has better treatment options (one being timely treatment) is because, under free enterprise, they also are able to assure better doctors. The economic research is there

I'm all for elderly care... (God knows they paid for it throughout their productive lives) , But it ain't viable social support until two simple problems are addressed and solved:

1) the "Price" of medicine. When did it become okay for medical associations to dictate the price of medicine and medical education such that prices have been raised to ridiculously lofty levels. Tell me, Would you pay 60.00 for an aspirin? Is it right?
2) Private hospitals. I cant even begin to describe the level of horseshit they spew out in the name of "cost". They are partially responsible for driving up the price of medicine. Simply put, ban admin agencies altogether. Allow doctors to practice without the fiscal encumbrance imposed upon them. Studies have shown that if left to a proper competitive environment, the best doctors will adapt to bearable markets. The minute the government or an admin puts its meat grubbing mits on that, it becomes a ****.

Your argument is a little confused:-

1. Both red assassin and I pointed out that the limiting factor in the provision of liver transplants was the number of livers available for transplant. Amazingly enough if there's no liver available for transplant no costs are incurred by the individual or by the healthcare system to transplant a liver.

So the patient dies... but at least he/she will die with the satisfaction of knowing they woulda, coulda shoulda had that free liver. Meanwhile your failing system plows on... and the masses are still drinking the koolaid, being forced to pay into a system, from which its benefits are left to the off chance that a free liver is available. I wonder, do you subscribe to the notion which says that if I am younger than you and there is only one liver available, I get it and you don't...(even though you have paid into the system) ?

2. You state the the US has better treatment options (one being timely treatment). This is at best arguable. Take for example red assassin's point about the percentage of GDP spent on healthcare in the US and the UK respectively, and the "value" of the outcomes. Then there's the average treatment wait times in the two countries, and the availability of that treatment to, in the UK the entire population, in the US largely limited to those who can afford it (or a proxy, the cost of the insurance).

3. Please evidence your claim that US doctors are better.

- We have free markets. Name your resources... Free market competition (even in medicine) is the cornerstone of thriving economies. Don't Believe Me? Why are so many of you highly qualified British doctors coming to the U.S. to practice? Mind you, I'm not saying our system is perfect. But neither is yours, and yet, your people are at the same risk of being shorted a free liver.
- We also have this: Bar -none, superior to any agencies that the UK (or EU, or ASIA) produces. (Even Cuba, which produces exemplary medical education takes it's cue form AMA): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... ssociation

4. You lament the public health care system in the UK and then criticise the private healthcare system in the US because of the cost of medicines. Well, in the UK, with is public healthcare system, prices paid to the pharma industry are agreed centrally and applied nationally. It is true that it's cheaper overall for the individual to by a box of a generic painkiller from the chemist than it is to get it via NHS subscription, but that's largely because of the cost of purchase and the admin associated with administering the subscription. The answer is for the individual to spend 50p on packet of paracetamol in a supermarket rather than get the same packet from the NHS which ends up spending £5 on it. The reverse is true when you're talking about more complicated and / or more dangerous drugs (which aren't available in the supermarket).

This is intensely naïve. I cant speak for the UK but here in the U.S., Our congress sold out to Big Pharma lobbyists to the tune of billions of dollars. That effectively means Big Pharma can name any price it wants, and by virtue of congressional rule, the healthcare system + insurance companies are bowing to their will. This was one of the things that Trump attempted to correct. He banned lobbyists during the first year of his term. He also commissioned a team to addressing the pricing problems. . There is no way you are gonna convince me that your UK regulatory agencies aren't practicing the same corruption. Surely, I needn't spell this out.

5. So public healthcare isn't the answer because "stuff", but private hospitals are the devil because they cost too much? Even when it's proven that public healthcare in the UK provides, across the whole population, better outcomes / $ spent than the private healthcare system in the US?

No proof... its bull. Think about who releases those "proof" reports. (No conflict of interest there...Nothing to see here...move along) . What you don't know about me is that I have inside experience with the Fraud , Waste and Abuse division for our CMS (Center for Medicare Services) agency. As you know CMS is also a socialistic model. I never disputed the merits of a socialistic model. My dispute is with the incompetenciess behind the people who try to manage it. Our CMS WAS working for millions of our elderly, , but for the ensuing Government overreach . The end result is a shit-storm of waste and/or criminal application, which called on FWA division to be created.

6. Lacking any regulation and / or competition the provision of any good will naturally tend towards the maximization of profit, which will be a factor of cost of production on the one hand and the size of the market (essentially price * volume). In healthcare "price * volume" doesn't necessarily equate to the maximum number of people treated. In your description it's not the doctors that have to "adapt to bearable markets", but the patients who can't afford the care.

I have never suggested that we should abolish regulations. But the healthcare problem is the direct result of greed... and I have given to you, what I believe to be two very tacit, real avenues to a solution.

[red assassin]

So the patient dies... but at least he/she will die with the satisfaction of knowing they woulda, coulda shoulda had that free liver. Meanwhile your failing system plows on... and the masses are still drinking the koolaid, being forced to pay into a system, from which its benefits are left to the off chance that a free liver is available. I wonder, do you subscribe to the notion which says that if I am younger than you and there is only one liver available, I get it and you don't...(even though you have paid into the system) ?

I continue to be baffled by this line of argument. The US uses a very similar prioritisation metric for liver transplants (MELD) to the UK because neither country has enough transplant livers to satisfy demand, and as I showed earlier, the average waiting time for a liver transplant in the UK is significantly shorter than in the US! Furthermore, no I don't believe that rich people should get transplant livers and not poor people.

[fiksal]

As I learned many Americans don't think the government should provide for its citizens. It shouldn't take care of elderly or disabled, shouldn't use taxes for education, or healthcare. Anyone who doesn't have money to afford the previous is weak and undeserving.

That's just hyperbole. Sure, a segment of the population carry that "sentiment", but even among them it's not to that extreme. I have lived here for almost 20 years and I have never seen ONE person speak out against providing for the elderly. The arguments are usually centered around things like universal income, minimum wage ...etc... but when it get political it usually turn into an emotive argument like "shouldn't take of the elderly!!", I'm sorry but that's just a dishonest presentation, like how abortion argument usually get turned in "Satan is killing the babies!"

For sure those kind of views vary, but they are related.
- why should I pay for your healthcare?
- well why should I pay for your bridge?
- or your social security, or disability, or border, or military, or veterans.

For me personally, it's not that I'm against universal healthcare, it's more I don't think that's the problem. Finding someone to pay for healthcare doesn't answer the question why the **** healthcare in the US is so expensive in the first place. Guess what, most countries in Asia (including the more developed nations) do not have universal healthcare, and that's not an issue. We pay out of pocket every time we visit doctor or take our prescription, the difference is it doesn't cost us an arm and a leg to do so.

Why? It's because we have this kind of health insurance companies, that make up prices with the doctors and then spread the cost to "customers".

Another thing is I don't understand why health insurance work the way it is in America. Like we have insurance over there too, but health insurance is more an emergency thing, like when you go to ER or have an operation. But you don't pull out your insurance for every damn thing! Like why don't it work like car insurance. Everyone have car insurance right, but do you use your insurance when you do oil change or having flat tired? House insurance don't get used on replacing your window or having someone snake your sewer line either.

In Canada it's even the other way around.

Government will cover your hospitals, your ER, and pretty much everything else.

You can choose to have private insurance if you want to go to private clinics. But that's not a required, it's up to you - you can instead put the money into health savings, instead of paying for insurance.
(A little unclear on how dentists work without private insurance coverage).

And yes, as you mentioned, the health care cost in Canada is significantly lower as well. In fact, I've plugged some numbers awhile back with a buddy of mine; taking cost of Blue Cross in US, + how much they cover and how much you use them, somehow it is barely even with what's taken out of taxes in Canada + private insurance + what you pay above that. Which is hilarious because the Blue Cross plan definitely doesnt cover 100% of ERs and hospitals. Nor it guarantees any wait times, which are - from my view - are identical between the two countries.

Go back to the subject of cost, there are a lot of "excuse" for why it's so expensive. And you can tell that's an excuse. Remember the usual "reason" was oh a lot of people don't have insurance so hospital have to incure cost 'cause people can't pay. It'll go down if more people have insurance. We're in like what ... year 10 of Obama care, with a lot more people with coverage now and guess what, healthcare is still as expensive as it was before Obamacare! I got into an accident little over a year ago, and an evening in ER where I receive almost no treatment still came with a 10k+ bill, and that was a City hospital, not even a private one. **** that.

No finding someone else to pay for it (i.e government) doesn't solve any damn thing, and when it comes to government money it's just your money anyway. The greed and corruption on all level of the healthcare system is the problem, not the insurance coverage.

That's exactly the point, government money is still your money. In well oiled government, that money is put where you see the priorities should be.

Btw, the ER visit in Canada is $0. (Though I dont recall how much ambulance do you have to copay)

[PaperDog]

So the patient dies... but at least he/she will die with the satisfaction of knowing they woulda, coulda shoulda had that free liver. Meanwhile your failing system plows on... and the masses are still drinking the koolaid, being forced to pay into a system, from which its benefits are left to the off chance that a free liver is available. I wonder, do you subscribe to the notion which says that if I am younger than you and there is only one liver available, I get it and you don't...(even though you have paid into the system) ?

I continue to be baffled by this line of argument. The US uses a very similar prioritisation metric for liver transplants (MELD) to the UK because neither country has enough transplant livers to satisfy demand, and as I showed earlier, the average waiting time for a liver transplant in the UK is significantly shorter than in the US! Furthermore, no I don't believe that rich people should get transplant livers and not poor people.

No need to be baffled...Its called seeing another point of view. A key difference in my argument. is that in the US system, we don't make promises to people about their healthcare prospects... And Because we don't socialize the entire healthcare option , we have no need to 'pitch' lofty fantasies. BTW we do socialize some of it. We have federal Medicare and State Medicaid. The program benefits begin and end with the elderly and the disabled. The rest of us ..weel we have to get off our asses and work / contribute enough to afford the insurance. We don't 'leave ours behind' ...despite your implication. But you can be assured, we don't cut slackers any breaks either. That aside; The price of medicine is ridiculously high and excessive, and Big-Pharma, Hospital Admin , are a bane on the free market . I cant speak for the UK. But in America, we once honored the notion of fair play. The game has since changed and the three aforementioned are the culprits (File under the category: Greed) .

[Vertigo 7]

No need to be baffled...Its called seeing another point of view. A key difference in my argument. is that in the US system, we don't make promises to people about their healthcare prospects... And Because we don't socialize the entire healthcare option , we have no need to 'pitch' lofty fantasies. BTW we do socialize some of it. We have federal Medicare and State Medicaid. The program benefits begin and end with the elderly and the disabled. The rest of us ..weel we have to get off our asses and work / contribute enough to afford the insurance. We don't 'leave ours behind' ...despite your implication. But you can be assured, we don't cut slackers any breaks either. That aside; The price of medicine is ridiculously high and excessive, and Big-Pharma, Hospital Admin , are a bane on the free market . I cant speak for the UK. But in America, we once honored the notion of fair play. The game has since changed and the three aforementioned are the culprits (File under the category: Greed) .

You're right, we don't leave ours behind. 'Murica!

I can agree with some of your sentiments, but not everyone who can't afford proper healthcare and such are in their position by choice or even by their own doing. Yes, there's going to be some who continue to have their hand out and chose not to do anything on their own. But that's a very small percentage compared to the rest that have no alternatives or those that are providing for themselves. If your life were suddenly upended, wouldn't you also want some help? Wouldn't you also like to know that if you got injured or sick that you could be cared for? But what if instead of getting help, you were just told to do it yourself, get a job, or some other insult to your situation. Bet you wouldn't like that very much.

[RegisterMe]

I'm not a doctor, but I count many doctors amongst my friends. They tell me stories of relief, joy, and success against the odds. They also tell me stories of heartbreak, loss (and anger at unnecessary loss and ****).

Not once have I heard of, or experienced, a promise about healthcare beyond "we'll do the best we can". No doctor says "sir, your liver cancer is no problem, we'll get you a new one". Instead the message is "sir, your prospects are terminal, unless we can get you a new liver, we'll do the best we can".

And trust me, as somebody who drinks waaaaaaaay too much, this subject is of interest to me.

The most invasive procedure I've had on the NHS is my ears being syringed. I'm delighted that the money the NHS has "saved" through my good fortune can benefit those less fortunate than me. Equally I have no problems with the fact that the taxes I've paid have provided the state with far more than I have ever taken out of it.

When and if the time comes that I need a replacement liver, and the NHS replies "sorry sir, you have a life long record of alcohol abuse, and there's a young mum that needs the one we have available more than you", well, that's how the cards fall.

[RegisterMe]

Infant mortality rates

Maternal mortality rates

Guess what happens if you factor by the colour of a person's skin?

EDIT: The urls didn't come out cleanly so I tidied them up to make sense.