USA health care in terrible shape

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

Of course it's skewed!!! It is meant to show how lower and middle class in this country are at an automatic disadvantage as compared to other countries. That is the whole point!!!

Land of opportunity my ass.

Anyway, the percentage of people in this country (including insured) not reporting illnesses, even chronic, is far higher than that of other countries, because of cost. And I repeat, including insured.

LJS9502_basic

Again...the topic is incorrect. It's not the US health care that is terrible...it's the lack of insurance. Two different things.

Actually, it is not.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1

There's a reason why almost every single western nation has adopted nationalized health care...and no, it's not because they're brainwashed socialists.

There's a reason why almost every single western nation has adopted nationalized health care...and no, it's not because they're brainwashed socialists.

jointed

And the reason why we haven't adopted nationalized health care is because this country is full of a bunch of brainwashed capitalists who shudder anytime anyone mentionsthe tem socialism.

And the reason why we haven't adopted nationalized health care is because this country is full of a bunch of brainwashed capitalists who shudder anytime anyone mentionsthe tem socialism.

Engrish_Major

I think it's more that problems exist in that form of health care as well. Then there is the increase in taxes....which doesn't help.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

And the reason why we haven't adopted nationalized health care is because this country is full of a bunch of brainwashed capitalists who shudder anytime anyone mentionsthe tem socialism.

LJS9502_basic

I think it's more that problems exist in that form of health care as well. Then there is the increase in taxes....which doesn't help.

All other industrialized nations pay less per capita for health care than the US. Remember, increased taxes mean reduction or elimination of insurance premiums.

All other industrialized nations pay less per capita for health care than the US. Remember, increased taxes mean reduction or elimination of insurance premiums.

Engrish_Major

Most of my insurance is picked up by my employer.....therefore, I'd pay more with increased taxes. I don't imagine I'm the only one that would be affected.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

All other industrialized nations pay less per capita for health care than the US. Remember, increased taxes mean reduction or elimination of insurance premiums.

LJS9502_basic

Most of my insurance is picked up by my employer.....therefore, I'd pay more with increased taxes. I don't imagine I'm the only one that would be affected.

If you do not think that your benefits affect your base pay, then you're mistaken. You already pay for those premiums either way.

If you do not think that your benefits affect your base pay, then you're mistaken. You already pay for those premiums either way.

Engrish_Major

However, my pay will not increase with the taxes..so I would lose money.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

If you do not think that your benefits affect your base pay, then you're mistaken. You already pay for those premiums either way.

LJS9502_basic

However, my pay will not increase with the taxes..so I would lose money.

Think of what would probably happen:

1. Government enacts socialized health care for everyone.

2. Taxes increase.

3. Employers remove health benefits for employees.

4. For those companies that do not adjust wages accordingly, employees react and unions demand compensation.

5. Employers compensate employees to replace lost benefits.

The truth is that companies cannot get away with removal of benefits or pay without compensation. Also, market laws dictate that the changes will increase wages.

The UK health service isn't great, but imo miles ahead of the US system. There is no great tax ddeduction that is noticiable and the option for having insured health care on top of the health care that is provided through national tax always remain an option.

An option, not a necesseity.

Uk health care is free at the point of delivery, no-one is exempt, no payments are demanded for an ever increasing variety of treatments.

No-one hesitates about procuring health treatement and the system is under constant review in order to offer more choice and faster and more choice of treatement types.

I think the point is, that you'll be hard pressed to find people who would wish to move from a nationalised system to the type of system that is in the US. Theres a reason for that, I think its the constant sense of security, no matter where in the social ladder you may be. I've got no problem with paying indirectly for other's treatement, as other people have indirectly paid for mine, in the past and no doubt in the future.

The UK health service isn't great, but imo miles ahead of the US system. There is no great tax ddeduction that is noticiable and the option for having insured health care on top of the health care that is provided through national tax always remain an option.

An option, not a necesseity.

Uk health care is free at the point of delivery, no-one is exempt, no payments are demanded for an ever increasing variety of treatments.

No-one hesitates about procuring health treatement and the system is under constant review in order to offer more choice and faster and more choice of treatement types.

I think the point is, that you'll be hard pressed to find people who would wish to move from a nationalised system to the type of system that is in the US. Theres a reason for that, I think its the constant sense of security, no matter where in the social ladder you may be. I've got no problem with paying indirectly for other's treatement, as other people have indirectly paid for mine, in the past and no doubt in the future.

spacedog1973

Thank you!!!

All I ever see here are selfish Americans who shudder to think that they might be forced to help those less fortunate. It is good to hear someone on this forum with something good to say about the state-sponsored health care system that they use. Any mention of the word 'socialized' and Americans think we are moving toward a Stalinist system.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Health care itself is not in terrible shape. Access is a bit of a problem.LJS9502_basic

That's debatable. By leaving it in the hands of corporations whos main purpose is profit, they retain the right to exclude the poorer percentage of the population due to the fact that they will cost the corporation money to keep alive.

The poor percentage of the population has medical covered by government assistance. There is also assistance for working families. Thing is....the insurance payments are high for families so they don't want to pay for insurance. But..they do have expensive SUV's, computers with internet, cable TV, consoles etc. It's priorities that are wrong here.

Look at the waiting list in some countries for necessary operations....and, many people come from various countries for life saving treatment in the states. That should tell you something.

Exactly. People's priorities are ridiculous. I can't stand it when I see someone who spends a ton of money on their car, or clothes, or other material things (wants) when they really need to be spending that money on stuff that actually matters. Then they'll go and complain about it.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

No, it says that the large amount in the US is a 'key factor' in our ranking.

Engrish_Major

That's not what I was referring to though....the part about timely assistance. I take that to mean that those without health care don't seek treatment as quickly and therefore, that would contribute to their deaths...which could have been preventable. Our health care is very good here. I don't believe we have more preventable deaths overall. I think they made a distinction in this report that is being missed.

Do you know that many insured in this country do not even report illnesses because of fear of loss or increase in insurance premiums?

Do you konw that people in this country go seek medical attention for every little cough or cold?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Health care itself is not in terrible shape. Access is a bit of a problem.trix5817

That's debatable. By leaving it in the hands of corporations whos main purpose is profit, they retain the right to exclude the poorer percentage of the population due to the fact that they will cost the corporation money to keep alive.

The poor percentage of the population has medical covered by government assistance. There is also assistance for working families. Thing is....the insurance payments are high for families so they don't want to pay for insurance. But..they do have expensive SUV's, computers with internet, cable TV, consoles etc. It's priorities that are wrong here.

Look at the waiting list in some countries for necessary operations....and, many people come from various countries for life saving treatment in the states. That should tell you something.

Exactly. People's priorities are ridiculous. I can't stand it when I see someone who spends a ton of money on their car, or clothes, or other material things (wants) when they really need to be spending that money on stuff that actually matters. Then they'll go and complain about it.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Health care itself is not in terrible shape. Access is a bit of a problem.trix5817

That's debatable. By leaving it in the hands of corporations whos main purpose is profit, they retain the right to exclude the poorer percentage of the population due to the fact that they will cost the corporation money to keep alive.

The poor percentage of the population has medical covered by government assistance. There is also assistance for working families. Thing is....the insurance payments are high for families so they don't want to pay for insurance. But..they do have expensive SUV's, computers with internet, cable TV, consoles etc. It's priorities that are wrong here.

Look at the waiting list in some countries for necessary operations....and, many people come from various countries for life saving treatment in the states. That should tell you something.

Exactly. People's priorities are ridiculous. I can't stand it when I see someone who spends a ton of money on their car, or clothes, or other material things (wants) when they really need to be spending that money on stuff that actually matters. Then they'll go and complain about it.

[QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Health care itself is not in terrible shape. Access is a bit of a problem.deepdreamer256

That's debatable. By leaving it in the hands of corporations whos main purpose is profit, they retain the right to exclude the poorer percentage of the population due to the fact that they will cost the corporation money to keep alive.

The poor percentage of the population has medical covered by government assistance. There is also assistance for working families. Thing is....the insurance payments are high for families so they don't want to pay for insurance. But..they do have expensive SUV's, computers with internet, cable TV, consoles etc. It's priorities that are wrong here.

Look at the waiting list in some countries for necessary operations....and, many people come from various countries for life saving treatment in the states. That should tell you something.

Exactly. People's priorities are ridiculous. I can't stand it when I see someone who spends a ton of money on their car, or clothes, or other material things (wants) when they really need to be spending that money on stuff that actually matters. Then they'll go and complain about it.

I really do hate the term "working class".

Think of what would probably happen:

1. Government enacts socialized health care for everyone.

2. Taxes increase.

3. Employers remove health benefits for employees.

4. For those companies that do not adjust wages accordingly, employees react and unions demand compensation.

5. Employers compensate employees to replace lost benefits.

The truth is that companies cannot get away with removal of benefits or pay without compensation. Also, market laws dictate that the changes will increase wages.

Engrish_Major

And for those that don't? You can't state categorically that all companies must increase wages.

[QUOTE="deepdreamer256"][QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Health care itself is not in terrible shape. Access is a bit of a problem.trix5817

That's debatable. By leaving it in the hands of corporations whos main purpose is profit, they retain the right to exclude the poorer percentage of the population due to the fact that they will cost the corporation money to keep alive.

The poor percentage of the population has medical covered by government assistance. There is also assistance for working families. Thing is....the insurance payments are high for families so they don't want to pay for insurance. But..they do have expensive SUV's, computers with internet, cable TV, consoles etc. It's priorities that are wrong here.

Look at the waiting list in some countries for necessary operations....and, many people come from various countries for life saving treatment in the states. That should tell you something.

Exactly. People's priorities are ridiculous. I can't stand it when I see someone who spends a ton of money on their car, or clothes, or other material things (wants) when they really need to be spending that money on stuff that actually matters. Then they'll go and complain about it.

I really do hate the term "working class".

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

Think of what would probably happen:

1. Government enacts socialized health care for everyone.

2. Taxes increase.

3. Employers remove health benefits for employees.

4. For those companies that do not adjust wages accordingly, employees react and unions demand compensation.

5. Employers compensate employees to replace lost benefits.

The truth is that companies cannot get away with removal of benefits or pay without compensation. Also, market laws dictate that the changes will increase wages.

LJS9502_basic

And for those that don't? You can't state categorically that all companies must increase wages.

So basically your complaining about increased taxs because of a program that could help millions?

So basically your complaining about increased taxs because of a program that could help millions?

sSubZerOo

No...I was pointing out a flaw in his logic. The American people do not want the increase in taxes.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

So basically your complaining about increased taxs because of a program that could help millions?

LJS9502_basic

No...I was pointing out a flaw in his logic. The American people do not want the increase in taxes.

Most american's don't want taxs, PERIOD. That doesn't mean it would be a GOOD idea to make it reality.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

And for those that don't? You can't state categorically that all companies must increase wages.

sSubZerOo

So basically your complaining about increased taxs because of a program that could help millions?

Or maybe he's complaining because the program wouldn't help him and only help others at his expense?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

And for those that don't? You can't state categorically that all companies must increase wages.

Oleg_Huzwog

So basically your complaining about increased taxs because of a program that could help millions?

Or maybe he's complaining because the program wouldn't help him and only help others at his expense?

Which is incrediably narrow-sighted and selfish.. Lets stop any kind of taxs that help others such as welfare, public schooling or numerous other programs that do not affect me directly.

Which is incrediably narrow-sighted and selfish.. Lets stop any kind of taxs that help others such as welfare, public schooling or numerous other programs that do not affect me directly.

sSubZerOo

Conversely, how about we get people off public assistance and integrated into the work force. That is a much better plan...and will strengthen the country as well. Or we could all quit working and see how much money is left to support us.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Which is incrediably narrow-sighted and selfish.. Lets stop any kind of taxs that help others such as welfare, public schooling or numerous other programs that do not affect me directly.

LJS9502_basic

Conversely, how about we get people off public assistance and integrated into the work force. That is a much better plan...and will strengthen the country as well. Or we could all quit working and see how much money is left to support us.

Firstly, I never said the wellfare system is perfect or even the best idea.. But alot of people have been helped with it.. And your second point is completely irrelevent, and comes right back to the selfish and narrow sighted point I said earlier.... Sure there are lay abouts that live off of it, but there are alot of people who one time in their life depended on it for awhile to lift them up. And that being said I am all for improving these systems, I do have a problem at people who want them compeltely dismantled.. All so they can keep their money.. While leaving the less fortunate out to dry, of course they don't care intill it driectly affects them..

I do have a problem at people who want them compeltely dismantled.sSubZerOo

Nobody has suggested this.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]I do have a problem at people who want them compeltely dismantled.Oleg_Huzwog

Nobody has suggested this.

Nor did I directly point it out.. I just said it as a side note.. And it was more to the point that alot of americans don't want to pay taxs period and argue for it constantly.. This would lead tot he dismantling of these services, all so we could have alittle bit more money in our pockets.

Firstly, I never said the wellfare system is perfect or even the best idea.. But alot of people have been helped with it.. And your second point is completely irrelevent, and comes right back to the selfish and narrow sighted point I said earlier.... Sure there are lay abouts that live off of it, but there are alot of people who one time in their life depended on it for awhile to lift them up. And that being said I am all for improving these systems, I do have a problem at people who want them compeltely dismantled.. All so they can keep their money.. While leaving the less fortunate out to dry, of course they don't care intill it driectly affects them..

sSubZerOo

It's not selfish. Welfare should be short term. Generations should not be provided for by the hard work of others. That is the real selfish in welfare.

However, as a country if you continue to feel the solution is handouts...neither the country nor the individual will advance.

If people are against this plan because they don't want to pay higher taxes, they're despicable.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Firstly, I never said the wellfare system is perfect or even the best idea.. But alot of people have been helped with it.. And your second point is completely irrelevent, and comes right back to the selfish and narrow sighted point I said earlier.... Sure there are lay abouts that live off of it, but there are alot of people who one time in their life depended on it for awhile to lift them up. And that being said I am all for improving these systems, I do have a problem at people who want them compeltely dismantled.. All so they can keep their money.. While leaving the less fortunate out to dry, of course they don't care intill it driectly affects them..

LJS9502_basic

It's not selfish. Welfare should be short term. Generations should not be provided for by the hard work of others. That is the real selfish in welfare.

However, as a country if you continue to feel the solution is handouts...neither the country nor the individual will advance.

Yet again you ignored my first point.. I never said Wellfare was perfect in any way shape or form.. It does need to be improved on multiple levels to be more effective to helping people. And I have already stated those people using it by siting around are selfish and narrow sighted as well...

If people are against this plan because they don't want to pay higher taxes, they're despicable.

jointed

I'd rather not get subpar medical treatment.

Why is that to get good treatment in the UK one need have private medical insurance?

[QUOTE="jointed"]

If people are against this plan because they don't want to pay higher taxes, they're despicable.

LJS9502_basic

I'd rather not get subpar medical treatment.

Why is that to get good treatment in the UK one need have private medical insurance?

Ehm...no you don't.

If you want to pay for better treatment, fine.... but the underclass should still be covered 100%.

[QUOTE="jointed"]

If people are against this plan because they don't want to pay higher taxes, they're despicable.

LJS9502_basic

I'd rather not get subpar medical treatment.

Why is that to get good treatment in the UK one need have private medical insurance?

:roll: firstly define good medical treatment.. Secondly please explain why is this a surprise? You think a person with mult-million dollar funds should realistically get the same treatment through social health care that they would give if they spent tons of cash on? This isn't realistic, of course private treatment will always be better because ITS SO much more expensive! That doesn't take the fact away that it could help countless citizens that do not have that kind of money to spend for their treatment.

We could make this exact same thing on why public schools are useless.. The people who want the best schooling go to private schools.. This is ODVIOUS because private schools are not on set budgets and costs much more. That doesn't mean public schools which catter to the vast majority is absoultely useless (though it of course can be improved, sense public schooling specially in the US is in shambles due to irresponsible spending on multiple levels, and just simply not enough money given to them).

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="jointed"]

If people are against this plan because they don't want to pay higher taxes, they're despicable.

sSubZerOo

I'd rather not get subpar medical treatment.

Why is that to get good treatment in the UK one need have private medical insurance?

:roll: firstly define good medical treatment.. Secondly please explain why is this a surprise? You think a person with mult-million dollar funds should realistically get the same treatment through social health care that they would give if they spent tons of cash on? This isn't realistic, of course private treatment will always be better because ITS SO much more expensive! That doesn't take the fact away that it could help countless citizens that do not have that kind of money to spend for their treatment.

We could make this exact same thing on why public schools are useless.. The people who want the best schooling go to private schools.. This is ODVIOUS because private schools are not on set budgets and costs much more. That doesn't mean public schools which catter to the vast majority is absoultely useless (though it of course can be improved, sense public schooling specially in the US is in shambles due to irresponsible spending on multiple levels, and just simply not enough money given to them).

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? And by the way, hospitals by law can't turn anyone away in a life and death situation due to lack of insurance.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? And by the way, hospitals by law can't turn anyone away in a life and death situation due to lack of insurance.LJS9502_basic

Unless of course it is a chronic condition, or cancer...

Then even the insurance companies don't want you.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? And by the way, hospitals by law can't turn anyone away in a life and death situation due to lack of insurance.Engrish_Major

Unless of course it is a chronic condition, or cancer...

Then even the insurance companies don't want you.

I don't know where you came up with that. If you have insurance they have to pay...

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? And by the way, hospitals by law can't turn anyone away in a life and death situation due to lack of insurance.LJS9502_basic

Unless of course it is a chronic condition, or cancer...

Then even the insurance companies don't want you.

I don't know where you came up with that. If you have insurance they have to pay...

They do not have to cover you. Also, many with pre-existing conditions have had their rates increased to impossibly high premiums.

They do not have to cover you. Also, many with pre-existing conditions have had their rates increased to impossibly high premiums.

Engrish_Major

I've never heard of any such thing...

They do not have to cover you. Also, many with pre-existing conditions have had their rates increased to impossibly high premiums.

Engrish_Major

By law, your carrier has to cover those expenses. Also, by law, premiums cannot raise by more than 66.66% per year in most states. There are a few states that are higher, some that are lower. For example, Colorado is 10%.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

They do not have to cover you. Also, many with pre-existing conditions have had their rates increased to impossibly high premiums.

LJS9502_basic

I've never heard of any such thing...

http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/2/309

http://www.cbhconline.org/issues/stories/storybank/patti.html

http://www.ncpa.org/w/w43.html

http://parents.berkeley.edu/recommend/insurance/trouble.html

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1070777

Engrish_Major

I checked the top two...I'm assuming the others are similiar. They don't say anyone got dropped...just that they couldn't get coverage...that is different from your initial statement.

Yet again you ignored my first point.. I never said Wellfare was perfect in any way shape or form.. It does need to be improved on multiple levels to be more effective to helping people. And I have already stated those people using it by siting around are selfish and narrow sighted as well...

sSubZerOo

I didn't ignore that. I didn't see the need to respond. What would you have me say? Ok..you never said welfare was perfect.:|

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

LJS9502_basic

I checked the top two...I'm assuming the others are similiar. They don't say anyone got dropped...just that they couldn't get coverage...that is different from your initial statement.

No it's not... my initial statement was 'insurance companies don't want you'.

anyway, what does it matter? You don't care about chronically ill unable to get coverage?

No it's not... my initial statement was 'insurance companies don't want you'.

anyway, what does it matter? You don't care about chronically ill unable to get coverage?

Engrish_Major

If they have coverage...they keep it.:|

I don't think we need to emulate other countries. It would be better to lower insurance costs...and have plans for those that are low income or sick. But looking at Canada and the UK one clearly sees a problem with their healthcare as is.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

No it's not... my initial statement was 'insurance companies don't want you'.

anyway, what does it matter? You don't care about chronically ill unable to get coverage?

LJS9502_basic

If they have coverage...they keep it.:|

I don't think we need to emulate other countries. It would be better to lower insurance costs...and have plans for those that are low income or sick. But looking at Canada and the UK one clearly sees a problem with their healthcare as is.

Why not emulate other countries when they have a better system? Are we really that arrogant?

Why not emulate other countries when they have a better system? Are we really that arrogant?

Engrish_Major

Their system isn't better.:|

You may want to read up a bit on the issues facing their health care. Long waiting lists for necessary treatment is but one problem. The health care has been called sub par and that is why those who can afford to do so carry private health insurance. That does not instill confidence.