NationStates Jolt Archive

According to GWBush, in one the recent debates with Kerry, the American health care system is the envy of the world. If I wasn't so shocked at his stupidity, I'd die laughing.

If you're wealthy and/or very well insured, maybe.

If you're wealthy and/or very well insured, maybe.

My point exactly: health care costs a fortune in the US. Those less wealthy are screwed.

I get better medical for a $5 co-pay at my HMO than anyone in Europe gets, guaranteed.

I get better medical for a $5 co-pay at my HMO than anyone in Europe gets, guaranteed.

How about when you get a serious illness, or need surgery?

How about when you get a serious illness, or need surgery?

Then i'd have to wait in the same kind of lines they wait in in Canada for their socialized medicine.. except I'd be getting better treatment.

Now, my dad's got the same plan as I do, and he paid the $5 for triple-bypass surgery, waited 36 hours after diagnosis, and is still going strong 8 years later. And, his perscriptions are 5-10 dollars per fill at Kaiser.

health insurance is not the same as healtcare. I CHOOSE not to have insurance and i get great care from my local MD and it only costs about $45 a visit. I am far from rich (less than $30,000 a year) unless you have a cronic health issue insurance is a scam and is only needed for catastrophic care. The problem with our system is you have too many people going into the Dr. for the common cold or other minor issues.

i am a Brit and i use the NHS. good quality and free at the point of use. I'm just happy i don't live in the USA

In Belgium a visit to the doctor costs 18 euros, of which the biggest part is reimbursed. We have very good treatment AND we don't have to wait a long time to get treated (surgery etc).

Im in the industry, and while it would suck big time for me, the most efficient way would be the following

1) govt pays for "Catastrophic" coverage
2) no govt regulation/coverage for anything else.
3) a private insurance program for everything other than Catastrophic coverage.
4) tax offsets for medical exspenses. E.G. you get a 100% tax break for spending a certain percentage of income on medical costs..e.g. getting physicals. health clubs, glasses or if you choose to get insurace ect.

This reduces fraud.

Severly control litigation. It isnt even the
mcdonalds coffee" stuff that cost the system, Its all the unneeded medical procedures. Things used just in case it winds up in courts. I cannot tell you the number of MRIs I perform where the doctor reffered the case only because if on the odd chance it winds up in a lawsuit, he will have backup. hats $918 a pop. The patient isnt paying for it, the HMO or Medicare is paying for it. And we are paying for it through higher premiums or taxes.

and for those of you who do not know. Most counties have county health clinics that work on a sliding scale & if you are really poor you can get your health INS. coverage paid for by the state (not the feds). nobody in the US has to go without heathcare, but you may need to do some legwork and fill out a few forms.(oh the horror)

The US health system is the best in the world, if you have a sh*t load of money of are in the whitehouse.. but publicly its awful :( .

France and Canada actually have the best public heath care systems in the world!

The US health system is the best in the world, if you have a sh*t load of money of are in the whitehouse.. but publicly its awful :( .

France and Canada actually have the best public heath care systems in the world!

On what is your info based? I'd like to know where I can get some objective info on healthcare worldwide.

I get better medical for a $5 co-pay at my HMO than anyone in Europe gets, guaranteed.
Though we don't exclude people who're sick, as so many schemes in the States do. As I understand it, most American systems don't cover you for existing conditions unless you pay exhorbitant premiums.

On what is your info based? I'd like to know where I can get some objective info on healthcare worldwide.

This was quoted by another user in a similar thread.

WHO healthcare rankings (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html)
Pepe Dominguez
I get better medical for a $5 co-pay at my HMO than anyone in Europe gets, guaranteed.

But you still need private health cover in the first place, right? And that costs MONEY. And on what basis do you say it's better health care? Have you been through the health system in Europe. The WHO statistics cntradict your statemtent... And note, most of the top countries do have publicly funded healthcare. I use the public system. Nothing out of pocket and an excellent standard of care.

Also, for the person who said they were happy to pay $45 to see a doctor- what if it was urgent and you couldn't afford it at the time? Say you were just scraping by and had a sick child?

The US best healthcare in the world? Roflmao. My ass. If the US has "the best" anything then it's military force. That's it.

According to GWBush, in one the recent debates with Kerry, the American health care system is the envy of the world. If I wasn't so shocked at his stupidity, I'd die laughing.

What drugs is he on? Prozac?

What drugs is he on? Prozac?

Nah, if it were prozac he wouldn't look so grumpy all the time.

i watched the debate as well and was very pleased when hearing that one of kerry's bigger concerns was reforming the health care/security system. i was actually laughing my head o ff when i heard said bush statement before returning to being angry at how ignorant he is. man, if it wasn't that pathetic the use of the word envy in that place would be the best joke he's made during his campaign. okay, i'm german and our health care system is just pretty damn good, though we're just doing a lot of reform as well, but i really don't think there are too many (reasonably industrialized) nations who envy the US for their system -

But you still need private health cover in the first place, right? And that costs MONEY. And on what basis do you say it's better health care? Have you been through the health system in Europe. The WHO statistics cntradict your statemtent...

The WHO ratings are based on a socialist agenda, ie where having to pay more because you're wealthier is a good thing.

However on a pure quality assessment, I remember a recent report which stated that the US health system was really no better than most other developed nations, but cost twice as much.

i don't think you can call a WHO ranking based on "socialist agenda".

plus, it is slightly off focus to say it is a plus if the wealthier have to pay more. the important thing is the other side of that, that it is a plus if money is taken and distributed in a way that health care is afordable for everyone, which, of course, will unfortunately lead to the effect mentioned above. but i hope you will agree that it must be regarded as a plus if actually veryone can profit from health care, and>/or if it is regarded a downside whe health care is good, but only for those who can afford it -

Yeah the WHO are part of some big socialist conspiracy... :rolleyes:
WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

I'm assuming you're referring to the last bit? Well I think it's only fair that the wealthy pay a greater share of the healthcare burden. I mean, FFS, they have more money! They can afford it! Whether this comes from taxation or direct costs (although I'm in favour of free universal healthcare) the rich should pay more.

i don't think you can call a WHO ranking based on "socialist agenda".

WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

That's 3 of 5, and the first one would be 0.5, since obviously if you can't afford it, disability life expectancy will be more drastic than if you can.

The only measurement of pure performance is responsiveness.

Thats a horribly consumerist way of looking at healthcare.
Of course performance includes how well the care is delivered to all sections of the community, and whether people can afford it. I don't see how that can be argued against. And you know, inequality is a BIG issue in health. (I'm speakng from experience here- med student) So not addressing it and pretending everything will be fine is ridiculous.

Nah, if it were prozac he wouldn't look so grumpy all the time.

It explains why he's so optimistic about things eg broken healthcare system, Iraq, etc

i am a Brit and i use the NHS. good quality and free at the point of use. I'm just happy i don't live in the USA

Free yes, good quality, no.

Thats a horribly consumerist way of looking at healthcare.
Of course performance includes how well the care is delivered to all sections of the community, and whether people can afford it. I don't see how that can be argued against. And you know, inequality is a BIG issue in health. (I'm speakng from experience here- med student) So not addressing it and pretending everything will be fine is ridiculous.

I'm all for removing unnecessary burdens on the health system, like out of control lawsuits which just cause the indemnity insurance to skyrocket and filter through to patients.

As far as I'm concerned that's about all that needs to be addressed about inequality, artificial cost barriers that price people out of the market place.

Although coming to these boards, I should be used to people who think not adhering to Yurupean socialism is some inhuman trait.

Free yes, good quality, no.

Depends on which part of the country you're in.

This was quoted by another user in a similar thread.

WHO healthcare rankings (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html)


But you still need private health cover in the first place, right? And that costs MONEY. And on what basis do you say it's better health care? Have you been through the health system in Europe. The WHO statistics cntradict your statemtent... And note, most of the top countries do have publicly funded healthcare. I use the public system. Nothing out of pocket and an excellent standard of care.

Also, for the person who said they were happy to pay $45 to see a doctor- what if it was urgent and you couldn't afford it at the time? Say you were just scraping by and had a sick child?


there are government prgrams to cover those costs, or if worse comes to worse you goto the local emergency room, they can't refuse to treat you and you pay the bill over time. If you are truely poor the state WILL PAY YOUR BILL.

I'm British and to be honest I'm happy with the NHS. I know a lot of people complain about it, but it's still a good system. Nothing's going to be perfect, but I'm happy with it and I'm grateful that healthcare is available to everyone.

also here in california we get to watch TV commercials trying to get people to sign up for medical & healty families(the state payed health-care) because they have more money than people. This silly notion that anybody goes without healthcare in the US is just plain wrong. The programs are there if people would choose to use them

The US health system is the best in the world, if you have a sh*t load of money of are in the whitehouse.. but publicly its awful :( .

France and Canada actually have the best public heath care systems in the world!

I live in Canada, and believe me, it's problematic. Not that I want American-style healthcare. I would prefer a two-tier system, like in Germany.

In terms of medical and particularly surgical technology, sure, America is the worlds leader.
But in terms of widespread availability and overall performance, what a joke!!

I would rather have the health system America has now than any other in the world. Because paying for someone elses medical costs is stupid, if they can't pay it to bad for them I shouldn't be held for someone elses problems.

for the middle class and above, the health care received in america si the best there is. the system, however, may be the most screwed up and have the most built in expenses that are unnecessary. as far as i am concerned, the first question i would have to someone who says "what if you are craping by and have a sick kid?" would be "isn't the problem people who cannot even provide basic health care for a child having children in the first place?" or, in america "why pay into system that covers our obese and smokers, they make the choice to live their lifestyle, let them eat or smoke the consequences of their own decisions." effectively, Americans believe that with all the freedom you have in this country, that comes with responsibilities, don;t expect everyone else to be responsible for the idiocy/lack of self control/laziness/stupidity of others....the system itself stinks, inefficient, worst mix of bnureacracy of government and business squeezing profits. the quality, however, is outstanding for the majority of the populace.

my response to social healthcare....
http://www.ebolamonkeyman.com/www/Monkey_cig.JPG


meh... its free anyways, so i might as well.http://67.18.37.17/html/emoticons/laugh.gif

Health care in the US is certainly one of the most convoluted systems I've seen, but I'm not entirely sure it's more expensive than much of europe. There are definately a lot of built in costs that are rediculous, and which the american public sees in their insurance records and premiums (some of which are in response to the legal problems both US presidental candidates promise to reform ... we'll see). However, in much of europe, health care is subsidized, if not fully paid for by the state. Are we including the taxes and programs in place which pay for those subsidies?

And it's true, anyone in the US can receive medical attention if they desire it, althought, as it was noted, there are certainly more forms you have to fill out (to prove you can't afford the services mostly). We have at least 3 major clinics in Denver alone which are entirely free.

I still miss the doc in the little town I used to live in. Most of the time, his services were entirely free because he figured he had enough money, and unless you needed expensive treatments, he was just there to help you feel better. Lots of small towns across the US are like that.

I would rather have the health system America has now than any other in the world. Because paying for someone elses medical costs is stupid, if they can't pay it to bad for them I shouldn't be held for someone elses problems.

It's nice to see someone who finds solidarity important...

I would rather have the health system America has now than any other in the world. Because paying for someone elses medical costs is stupid, if they can't pay it to bad for them I shouldn't be held for someone elses problems.
How about your defence, every one else pays for that, what's the difference?

Though we don't exclude people who're sick, as so many schemes in the States do. As I understand it, most American systems don't cover you for existing conditions unless you pay exhorbitant premiums.


Nope … my girlfriend has rheumatoid arthritis (has sense she was 6) she just got her own insurance (off of her parents) actually not too bad …

And she has a $10 Co pay (not to bad when she has to go in and get all kinds of cortisone shots) and is on 2 different meds.

Now her family DEFFINATLY doesn’t have money. (single mom with 6 girls) lol but they still manage not to have too much of a problem even when my GF was on their insurance

Same with my families … not too bad. Not exactly poor but in the middle zone of middle class.

Don’t know don’t mind the socialized welfare (specially when I was younger, I had a knack at hurting myself) but now that I got out of the habit of hurting myself I don’t feel like paying the massive tax increase that supporting a whole industry would necessitate. I think there should just be a better re adjustment

Get away from the HMO system, and get some better funding for those that cant get medical insurance through work, or at a decent rate for their income.

I guess someone should ask George Bush why all those Americans are being blocked from crossing over into Canada for their flu shots. The American Health Care System is one of the worst in the world because of greedy doctors and pharmaceutical companies.

In Belgium a visit to the doctor costs 18 euros, of which the biggest part is reimbursed. We have very good treatment AND we don't have to wait a long time to get treated (surgery etc).
I can only fully endorse this statement.
It's one of the least expensive health care arrangements in Europe. Quality is top class. People who have not contributed to the system due to lack of means get treatment as well. That's called solidarity. A socialist concept (a WHAT??).
Recently the system came under fire, together with the pensions system, because it's getting too expensive. Tax dodgers, the big ones at least, are left alone. Now who did they learn THOSE things from, I wonder?

That's 3 of 5, and the first one would be 0.5, since obviously if you can't afford it, disability life expectancy will be more drastic than if you can.

The only measurement of pure performance is responsiveness.

Ironically, one of the places USA ranked #1 on the spreadsheet. That report is far more about economics and coverage than technology and quality.

People who've never actually seen medical care in the USA really have no place to talk here. I laugh at all the Europeans bitching about our health care. What do you know?

Most of my adult life, I've been more than adequately covered though my employer's plan. But I was recently unemployed and had to secure my own personal health coverage. It cost me a whole $130 or so per month for a complete plan that included a drug plan & dental. There is do doubt in my mind that I would have to pay far more in increased taxes if the goverment socialized health care for everyone. Plus I expect the quality of my care would go down. As it is, if I get sick, even in a non-emergency situation, I can be seen within 24 hours. My wife had a more urgent case recently, and she was seen within an hour.

Our system works for my family. There may be some people it doesn't work so well for (not nearly as many a Kerry would have you think), but the only acceptable solution would be to find a way to bring those people up to 100% of my level. Bringing the well cared for people down to some median level that everyone can be at is the typical socialist response and not what we want in the USA.

I can only fully endorse this statement.
It's one of the least expensive health care arrangements in Europe. Quality is top class. People who have not contributed to the system due to lack of means get treatment as well. That's called solidarity. A socialist concept (a WHAT??).
Recently the system came under fire, together with the pensions system, because it's getting too expensive. Tax dodgers, the big ones at least, are left alone. Now who did they learn THOSE things from, I wonder?

Probably from human nature… everyone is ALWAYS looking for the easy way out (hence all the people looking for “free” healthcare) is and always will be a part of human nature

I live in France.
Since the 'carte vitale' has been deployed, there is no administrative or financial stuff anymore.
The health care is efficient, fast, with no waiting list and available to anyone.