NationStates Jolt Archive

Vote on my poll and tell me what you think.

Yes. Healthcare is good for preventing death and disease.







As for who pays for it...well, who knows? A combination of both is probably the most reasonable choice.

I think that the government needs to stay out of providing national healthcare.

Yes. Healthcare is good for preventing death and disease.







As for who pays for it...well, who knows? A combination of both is probably the most reasonable choice.

So I'm assuming you voted for the second option?

I think that the government needs to stay out of providing national healthcare.

But then a significant portion of the population won't get the medicines and checkups they need, thus resulting in many needless deaths and dehabilitating diseases that could have been detected and prevented. Think of the children! Think of the children!

Naw, children suck, the snop-nosed bastards.

But seriously.

I just want the government to leave me alone.

I just want the government to leave me alone.

So...by your logic you don't want the government to give you an education? (unless you went to a private school)

So I'm assuming you voted for the second option?
Nope, I voted for the first. It is a basic right - if it is available, it should be available to everyone.
Plus, you only really asked about healthcare, not about the way it is provided. ;)

But then a significant portion of the population won't get the medicines and checkups they need, thus resulting in many needless deaths and dehabilitating diseases that could have been detected and prevented. Think of the children! Think of the children!
Not to forget that poor people with the plague can't be a good thing, even for the rich.

without healthcare the poor would die out, and then the least richest of the rich would become the poor and then they would start to die. eventually the poverty epidemic would spread to everyone. free healthcare for all or capitalism will fall apart!

Absolutely.There is no reason why anyone should have to choose between keeping food on the table or taking their sick child to the doctor. I've seen people who were in that predicament,and it's a sad sight. I dont know why they charge $30 per pill for some medications that elderly people need. Same for an MRI for $10000. It's so expensive and unavailable for many. We have a hospital in my town that refuses patients if they do not have insurance. Turning sick people away for fear you wont ever receive payment just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I just want the government to leave me alone.

Pesky government and their inoculation plans that keep letting our children live past the age of 10. Ah, the good old days, when if you had 10 children, maybe some would survive...

without healthcare the poor would die out, and then the least richest of the rich would become the poor and then they would start to die. eventually the poverty epidemic would spread to everyone. free healthcare for all or capitalism will fall apart!

Logical fallacy.

Pesky government and their inoculation plans that keep letting our children live past the age of 10. Ah, the good old days, when if you had 10 children, maybe some would survive...

I was unaware that nations that don't have free healthcare, like the US, have such high mortality rates for children under 10. Always thought the average life span was 78 or so but I guess I was wrong.

Absolutely.There is no reason why anyone should have to choose between keeping food on the table or taking their sick child to the doctor. I've seen people who were in that predicament,and it's a sad sight. I dont know why they charge $30 per pill for some medications that elderly people need. Same for an MRI for $10000. It's so expensive and unavailable for many. We have a hospital in my town that refuses patients if they do not have insurance. Turning sick people away for fear you wont ever receive payment just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Thank you.

I was unaware that nations that don't have free healthcare, like the US, have such high mortality rates for children under 10. Always thought the average life span was 78 or so but I guess I was wrong.
1905 Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

1905 Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Vaccinations don't really count as a complete comprehensive health care system that many on the left are pining for.

Yes. It's ultimately economically beneficial for industry, it's good for the welfare of citizenry, and it's good for the maintenance of a society in which capitalism can flourish. Everyone wins.

I just want the government to leave me alone.well, have fun paying 1000s and 1000s of $$$ on health and education.

well, have fun paying 1000s and 1000s of $$$ on health and education.

Or just tax people against their will, after all, choice is so underrated these days. Why choose when you have the nice, competent government to do it for you? And you assume that all healthcare and education *must* be in the thousands of dollars... why?

Or just tax people against their will, after all, choice is so underrated these days. Why choose when you have the nice, competent government to do it for you?
A private health and education market still exist. How is choice being deprived?

A private health and education market still exist. How is choice being deprived?

By forcing us to pay taxes for them.

I think that the government needs to stay out of providing national healthcare.Well, have fun paying 100s and 100s of $$$ on drugs buddy.

I was unaware that nations that don't have free healthcare, like the US, have such high mortality rates for children under 10.

Inoculation plans tend to be heavily accessible in the developed world because they save us so much money. However, it is true that the US has an appalling infant mortality rate for a developed country. (http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranking_Infant_Mortality_Rate_aall.htm)

Always thought the average life span was 78 or so but I guess I was wrong.

At 74 for men in the US, actually. 78 has only been achieved by San Marino, Sweden, Iceland, Hong Kong, Singapore, Macau and Andorra.

Vaccinations don't really count as a complete comprehensive health care system that many on the left are pining for.
Shadowboxing again?

Smunkee said she wants the government to stay the hell away from her, Fass answered that it would surely be nice for the government to vaccinate your kids.
You made some sort of comment about how the US is doing just fine without "it" (I presume you meant your elaborate leftist conspiracy, rather than the actual vaccinations), and I showed you that the government can indeed vaccinate you to protect you and other people from disease.

By forcing us to pay taxes for them.
Is taxation at such a level that it grossly deprives you of your ability to make a choice?

Pesky government and their inoculation plans that keep letting our children live past the age of 10. Ah, the good old days, when if you had 10 children, maybe some would survive...
there are charities and companies that provide free vacinations, the government here doesn't provide them (unless you are on welfare insurance) they just require that you have them done.

So...by your logic you don't want the government to give you an education? (unless you went to a private school)
I don't. My children don't go to government provided education either.

well, have fun paying 1000s and 1000s of $$$ on health and education.
I wouldn't say it's "fun" but it's a lot better than having the government up my butt all the time. ;)

I was unaware that nations that don't have free healthcare, like the US, have such high mortality rates for children under 10. Always thought the average life span was 78 or so but I guess I was wrong.

Infant Mortality Rates 2005 -

United States of America: 6.6
Canada: 5.4
Cuba: 5.8
Ireland: 4.8
United Kingdom: 5.2
Sweden: 3.1

Draw your own conclusions from that.

Shadowboxing again?

Smunkee said she wants the government to stay the hell away from her, Fass answered that it would surely be nice for the government to vaccinate your kids.


I read his comment wrong then.

I just want the government to leave me alone.

What worries me is the fact that your government manages to spend about 50% more per capita on healthcare than the UK, and yet doesn't even have a universal, free at the point of delivery National Health Service.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_hea_car_fun_pub_per_cap

The "charitable"....and I use the term loosely....organizations in the US have some very strict requirements in order for you to receive assistance. Peachcare (a state program) for instance, is a part of the medicaid program, except that it is for children who have working parents.Medicaid does not require that you have employment. But the Peachcare deal will not provide care unless your child has been uninsured for a period of 6 months. So say yes you have a job making $8 bucks an hour, which isnt even enough to keep the heat on, pay for transportation or food, still your child must wait. So what if they need care before then? The typical doctor visit costs $80-$120 and does not include additional lab fees, X-rays or prescriptions. You can end up with a bill into the thousands for one illness.

there are charities and companies that provide free vacinations, the government here doesn't provide them (unless you are on welfare insurance) they just require that you have them done.

Dreadful to rely on charity for something so vital, but that it is required is fortunate, at least. I really would hate to see your kids, and countless others, die of/be injured by polio or something in the enormous epidemics you'd have when the inoculation threshold is not attained, just because you wanted the government to get out of your hair...

Then if you're going to have "free healthcare" you should only provide it exclusively to those with low incomes, not to everyone...and only for a short period of time.

What worries me is the fact that your government manages to spend about 50% more per capita on healthcare than the UK, and yet doesn't even have a universal, free at the point of delivery National Health Service.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_hea_car_fun_pub_per_cap
oh, because they are paying for healthcare that people are unable to pay for.

Health care here is expensive because malpractice insurance is so high, because iof fraudulent lawsuits and half-assed is good enough medical staff.


I went to the doctor last month, for a check up, no labs, just a check my weight, look in my ears, listen to my lungs check up $350.00

My kids have to go every 6 months to the GI at a cost of $200.00 a peice if they do an endoscopy it's $600 a peice, then labs at $75 for each of them, then they have to see thier regular doctor for checkups and when they are sick.

My husband's hospital/doctor bills are upwards of $200,000 a year.

He and the girls have insurance, I don't. I know healthcare is expensive, I would rather pay it, than have the government any more involved in my life than it already is.

Dreadful to rely on charity for something so vital, but that it is required is fortunate, at least. I really would hate to see your kids, and countless others, die of/be injured by polio or something in the enormous epidemics you'd have when the inoculation threshold is not attained, just because you wanted the government to get out of your hair...
Why rely on government? I will do whatever it takes to get my children what they need. I don't see the point in paying more than I do for my medical care now and getting less service.

Another thing, even if you have private insurance through your employer, say you change jobs. You have the choice to continue coverage under the COBRA plan, but the rates go up to about $1200 for a family of 4. Thats per month. Then you must find a job that offers a healthcare plan and then endure a waiting period of anywhere from 30 days to 6 months before coverage kicks in. And dont even get me started on pre-existing conditions as far as insurance is concerned.

Then if you're going to have "free healthcare" you should only provide it exclusively to those with low incomes, not to everyone...and only for a short period of time.
This I can see some logic to. A system in which the rich benefit from free healthcare, when it is well within their means to procure services from the private sector, makes little sense. Treatment for those who cannot afford it should be unconditional. For those with high incomes, on the other hand, it should only be available as a matter of emergency.

Then if you're going to have "free healthcare" you should only provide it exclusively to those with low incomes, not to everyone...and only for a short period of time.
I can agree with that. I don't want to see children suffer because thier parent's are going through a bad time, but nationwide government healthcare is crazy imo.

Health care here is expensive because malpractice insurance is so high, because iof fraudulent lawsuits and half-assed is good enough medical staff.


Which seems to suggest to me that the problem with free health care for the US doesn't lie with health care itself, but instead some dubious legal practice or tradition. How did this insane thing come to pass?

This I can see some logic to. A system in which the rich benefit from free healthcare, when it is well within their means to procure services from the private sector, makes little sense. Treatment for those who cannot afford it should be unconditional. For those with high incomes, on the other hand, it should only be available as a matter of emergency.

...or how about this: give an option where you can charge those that can afford it for shorter waiting lists, more privacy, more perks while undergoing healthcare, and use part of this money to support the main national health service. Oh dear, I appear to have just described BUPA.

Which seems to suggest to me that the problem with free health care for the US doesn't lie with health care itself, but instead some dubious legal practice or tradition. How did this insane thing come to pass?
It's America, the word of the decade is "sue". (http://www.injuryboard.com/view.cfm/Topic=1263)

Which seems to suggest to me that the problem with free health care for the US doesn't lie with health care itself, but instead some dubious legal practice or tradition. How did this insane thing come to pass?

Well in a society that can sue McDonalds because you spill their hot coffee on yourself....

Why rely on government?

Because only the government is in position to prevent epidemics of such scales. Just remember the outbreaks of diphtheria or smallpox.

I will do whatever it takes to get my children what they need. I don't see the point in paying more than I do for my medical care now and getting less service.

You doing for your kids is not enough. When it comes to things as inoculations a certain threshold of inoculated people needs to be attained to curb and prevent epidemics. Otherwise you'll see what some developed countries are seeing now, with all those idiots who don't get their children vaccinated: outbreaks and needless suffering and deaths because someone went "but, the government is such a bitch."

There are things governments are needed for. Preventative healthcare on such a grand scale is one of them. To go "oh, but I want the government to leave me alone" is just plain old stupid when it comes to this. Or do you long back to the plague?

Which seems to suggest to me that the problem with free health care for the US doesn't lie with health care itself, but instead some dubious legal practice or tradition. How did this insane thing come to pass?

We like sueing people. It's replaced baseball as the nation's favorite pastime.

Why rely on government? I will do whatever it takes to get my children what they need. I don't see the point in paying more than I do for my medical care now and getting less service.

...whereas in the UK, for example, we pay less and get more service.

You doing for your kids is not enough. When it comes to things as inoculations a certain threshold of inoculated people needs to be attained to curb and prevent epidemics. Otherwise you'll see what some developed countries are seeing now, with all those idiots who don't get their children vaccinated: outbreaks and needless suffering and deaths because someone went "but, the government is such a bitch."

There are things governments are needed for. Preventative healthcare on such a grand scale is one of them. To go "oh, but I want the government to leave me alone" is just plain old stupid when it comes to this. Or do you long back to the plague?
okay, then how about the government pays for vaccinations for children whose parent's can't afford it?

...or how about this: give an option where you can charge those that can afford it for shorter waiting lists, more privacy, more perks while undergoing healthcare, and use part of this money to support the main national health service. Oh dear, I appear to have just described BUPA.
I think the private sector should be the avenue for those with the money. Such a system as you describe would make sense if a) the government could handle demand b) it charged so much extra so that it would generate enough profits so as to provide better quality healthcare to all its patients.

okay, then how about the government pays for vaccinations for children whose parent's can't afford it?

So are you suggesting means-testing and compulsory vaccination for them who cannot afford it?

Well in a society that can sue McDonalds because you spill their hot coffee on yourself....

McDonald's deserved to get sued in that case. That woman suffered horrible burns because the coffee was indeed unreasonably hot - it was scalding, capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm). It was negligent of McDonald's to have it be that way when it is so apparent that spilling it on yourself is so easy.

okay, then how about the government pays for vaccinations for children whose parent's can't afford it?

See, you don't really want the government to get out of your hair.

I think everyone should get *routine* health care. Checkups, accidents (burns, broken bones, etc), common illnesses, births, wisdom teeth, eye exams, preventative care, things like that should all be covered. If there's a reasonably likelihood of any given individual developing a condition, then they should be able to just go in and get it done without any bureaucratic hassle or financial worry. The average per-person cost will go down substantially - some ridiculous percentage of every American healthcare dollar today goes toward paperwork or insurance, something like forty percent. The medical system that veterans are in is a perfect model of this and how a consolidated national program can in fact be more efficient and more effective than a regular market economy for an asset with inelastic demand (if you need medical care, you don't get time to shop around).
This would leave advanced care, like heart transplants and cancer treatments and experimental therapes, to the private sector. It may sound somewhat heartless to some, but I think society really needs to set a level and say, "You are guaranteed to be protected from these things, and if you want protection from other things you will have to pay for it." If you don't like the level of health care you get from the public system, you could pay for a private system, just like with schools. Even if you make that choice, though, you're still better off because everyone else is getting medical care and therefore not spreading illnesses or being forced onto welfare due to not treating a condition while it was still in its early stages (a depressingly common scenario).
One reason I favor this plan is that it draws fire from both sides. Short-sighted no-taxes-no-how survivalist types see only "taxes" and ignore the overall savings accrued through higher national productivity and lower personal costs on healthcare for routine events; idealistic nobody-should-ever-die dreamers don't like the idea that people with money would be able to buy their way out of medical problems that poorer people would die from or receive expensive treatments that add six months to a rapidly declining lifespan.
I think it makes the best of both worlds, though. Establishing a national system of basic care removes the statistically-guaranteed events with low profitability from the game, leaving the expensive and experimental treatments to the private sector, where they can be free to concentrate on those core concepts without having to handle the routine stuff. Governments are good at predictable, large-scale operations. Markets are good at quick-moving variable-size operations. So just split things up so that everyone does what they're good at.

So are you suggesting means-testing and compulsory vaccination for them who cannot afford it?
I just want the government to leave me alone, I don't care what they do to anyone else ;)

The only way to get government sponsored health care now is to prove to them that you don't make enough to take care of that on your own, it wouldn't be much of a difference than what goes on now, as far as compulsory, it already is (as much as it can be) you have to have your "shots" to go to public school, to go to daycare, ect. If they find out your kids aren't vaccinated then the government can take them away because you are "abusing them" by not providing basic health care.

See, you don't really want the government to get out of your hair.
okay fine. I don't want government sponsored health care across the board, but for poor kids who would die or possibly kill my kids otherwise then I guess they can have it.

The only way to get government sponsored health care now is to prove to them that you don't make enough to take care of that on your own, it wouldn't be much of a difference than what goes on now, as far as compulsory, it already is (as much as it can be) you have to have your "shots" to go to public school, to go to daycare, ect. If they find out your kids aren't vaccinated then the government can take them away because you are "abusing them" by not providing basic health care.

Seems to me that instead of letting insurance companies or other middle men skim money off the pile that you pay for your own health care with, it would make sense (seeing as how you're stuck with a government) for them to be the middle man and so theoretically allow more of the money to actually be spent on healthcare.

In other words: universal free health care.

I think everyone should get *routine* health care. Checkups, accidents (burns, broken bones, etc), common illnesses, births, wisdom teeth, eye exams, preventative care, things like that should all be covered. If there's a reasonably likelihood of any given individual developing a condition, then they should be able to just go in and get it done without any bureaucratic hassle or financial worry. The average per-person cost will go down substantially - some ridiculous percentage of every American healthcare dollar today goes toward paperwork or insurance, something like forty percent. The medical system that veterans are in is a perfect model of this and how a consolidated national program can in fact be more efficient and more effective than a regular market economy for an asset with inelastic demand (if you need medical care, you don't get time to shop around).
This would leave advanced care, like heart transplants and cancer treatments and experimental therapes, to the private sector. It may sound somewhat heartless to some, but I think society really needs to set a level and say, "You are guaranteed to be protected from these things, and if you want protection from other things you will have to pay for it." If you don't like the level of health care you get from the public system, you could pay for a private system, just like with schools. Even if you make that choice, though, you're still better off because everyone else is getting medical care and therefore not spreading illnesses or being forced onto welfare due to not treating a condition while it was still in its early stages (a depressingly common scenario).
One reason I favor this plan is that it draws fire from both sides. Short-sighted no-taxes-no-how survivalist types see only "taxes" and ignore the overall savings accrued through higher national productivity and lower personal costs on healthcare for routine events; idealistic nobody-should-ever-die dreamers don't like the idea that people with money would be able to buy their way out of medical problems that poorer people would die from or receive expensive treatments that add six months to a rapidly declining lifespan.
I think it makes the best of both worlds, though. Establishing a national system of basic care removes the statistically-guaranteed events with low profitability from the game, leaving the expensive and experimental treatments to the private sector, where they can be free to concentrate on those core concepts without having to handle the routine stuff. Governments are good at predictable, large-scale operations. Markets are good at quick-moving variable-size operations. So just split things up so that everyone does what they're good at.

ah, but isn't that "unfair" to people with auto immune disorders that they were born with and have no way of "preventing" or getting a cure for?

Anyhow: how to tackle the US's litigious culture?

Seems to me that instead of letting insurance companies or other middle men skim money off the pile that you pay for your own health care with, it would make sense (seeing as how you're stuck with a government) for them to be the middle man and so theoretically allow more of the money to actually be spent on healthcare.

In other words: universal free health care.
but what about the standard of care? without insurance here the standard of care sucks, how would the government fix this? really I am curious, I had to waid 18 months for surgery to remove my nonfunctioning yet painful gallbladder, I found out that if I had my husband's insurance I would have waited about 4 days.

McDonald's deserved to get sued in that case. That woman suffered horrible burns because the coffee was indeed unreasonably hot - it was scalding, capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm). It was negligent of McDonald's to have it be that way when it is so apparent that spilling it on yourself is so easy.

She was in fact found liable for 20% of the accident.So I suppose it wasnt all McD's fault. I agree that the lady suffered greatly and the coffee was too hot. But should we really need warning labels to tell us "caution:coffee is hot".
Also, its possible that someone could suffer the same or similar burns from coffee held at the recommended temperature of 140 degrees.

But back to the topic.

Its because by treating lots of people the per person cost drops (partially as bulk buying makes it cheaper its also as then your specialist people and equipment will always have people you can use them on so rather then having 1 machine per hospital you can have 1 machine per city and just run it all the time).

Its also because if the government wants a loan it gets it on ridiculusly low interest rates.

Ironically by bringing the private sector into the NHS (the British National Health Service for anyone who doesn't know) has made it more expensive while lowering treatment levels

but what about the standard of care? without insurance here the standard of care sucks, how would the government fix this? really I am curious, I had to waid 18 months for surgery to remove my nonfunctioning yet painful gallbladder, I found out that if I had my husband's insurance I would have waited about 4 days.

Sort out the litigious culture, and you will have public health care spending equivalent to one and a half times that of the UK per capita actually being spent on health care rather than letting lawyers get fat: should go some way to easing things.

Health care ain't the problem. It's the legal system.

Hang the lawyers. Make more doctors.

I think everyone should get *routine* health care. Checkups, accidents (burns, broken bones, etc), common illnesses, births, wisdom teeth, eye exams, preventative care, things like that should all be covered. If there's a reasonably likelihood of any given individual developing a condition, then they should be able to just go in and get it done without any bureaucratic hassle or financial worry. The average per-person cost will go down substantially - some ridiculous percentage of every American healthcare dollar today goes toward paperwork or insurance, something like forty percent. The medical system that veterans are in is a perfect model of this and how a consolidated national program can in fact be more efficient and more effective than a regular market economy for an asset with inelastic demand (if you need medical care, you don't get time to shop around).
This would leave advanced care, like heart transplants and cancer treatments and experimental therapes, to the private sector. It may sound somewhat heartless to some, but I think society really needs to set a level and say, "You are guaranteed to be protected from these things, and if you want protection from other things you will have to pay for it." If you don't like the level of health care you get from the public system, you could pay for a private system, just like with schools. Even if you make that choice, though, you're still better off because everyone else is getting medical care and therefore not spreading illnesses or being forced onto welfare due to not treating a condition while it was still in its early stages (a depressingly common scenario).
One reason I favor this plan is that it draws fire from both sides. Short-sighted no-taxes-no-how survivalist types see only "taxes" and ignore the overall savings accrued through higher national productivity and lower personal costs on healthcare for routine events; idealistic nobody-should-ever-die dreamers don't like the idea that people with money would be able to buy their way out of medical problems that poorer people would die from or receive expensive treatments that add six months to a rapidly declining lifespan.
I think it makes the best of both worlds, though. Establishing a national system of basic care removes the statistically-guaranteed events with low profitability from the game, leaving the expensive and experimental treatments to the private sector, where they can be free to concentrate on those core concepts without having to handle the routine stuff. Governments are good at predictable, large-scale operations. Markets are good at quick-moving variable-size operations. So just split things up so that everyone does what they're good at.

Scenario: An ambulance takes a guy to the emergency room because he's having a heart attack. He doesn't have insurance, however. So, let him die on the spot, or save his life and lose profit?

Scenario: An ambulance takes a guy to the emergency room because he's having a heart attack. He doesn't have insurance, however. So, let him die on the spot, or save his life and lose profit?
Well isn't it obvious? :eek: How could one in the medical profession even contemplate for a second of losing the profit. What is the world coming to. :eek: :rolleyes:

ah, but isn't that "unfair" to people with auto immune disorders that they were born with and have no way of "preventing" or getting a cure for?
Yup. That's exactly the point I made at the end of my post, in fact. But that's the way life goes. You can say nobody gets free care and be perfectly capitalistic, you can say absolutely everything is covered and be perfectly communistic, or you can dance around the middle ground.
When you're in the middle ground, the point is figuring out how far to stretch the safety net. Figure 90% of actual medical needs are routine, everyday matters or reasonable preventative care. Economically, a single government program can administer this much more effectively than a distributed and uncoordinated market, and this is the unprofitable stuff anyhow.
Beyond that, it starts getting more and more expensive to cover smaller and smaller percentages - a marginal-cost situation, precisely where free markets work their magic, nimbly eking out benefits for those who can pay for it. And if you can't pay for it, you're no worse off than you are under the current system, now are you?
We'll look at the situation... one medical condition, $200,000 a year in medical fees. That's probably not going to get covered, whatever it is. Kids' visits to the doctor and checkups, $200 - $600 a whack, or thereabouts. Those would get covered. And the total tax increase to pay for the routine care would generally be smaller than the savings accrued from not having to pay for the routine care - because without the extra paperwork, the actual cost of care is dramatically lower. Fair to the hubbie with the expensive condition? No, but no less fair than the current system - and insurance could still cover it, if you've got the money and foresight to buy insurance. Fair to the kids? Sure, it's a great deal!

Well isn't it obvious? :eek: How could one in the medical profession even contemplate for a second of losing the profit. What is the world coming to. :eek: :rolleyes:


It happens. Some facilities check your insurance status before they will agree to administer certain tests. Tests that could find diseases or conditions that are fatal. If your insurance doesnt pay, then sometimes they will use alternate methods of treatment, which means less expensive, and almost always less effective.

Scenario: An ambulance takes a guy to the emergency room because he's having a heart attack. He doesn't have insurance, however. So, let him die on the spot, or save his life and lose profit?

As far as I know a hospital just has to stabilize a patient and after that they can dump him off on a crappier hospital that accepts the uninsured.

It happens. Some facilities check your insurance status before they will agree to administer certain tests. Tests that could find diseases or conditions that are fatal. If your insurance doesnt pay, then sometimes they will use alternate methods of treatment, which means less expensive, and almost always less effective.
lol I just found it funny how money would be the primary interest of a medical practitioner as opposed to saving lives. I can hardly attest to being familiar with the Hippocratic Oath, yet one would think saving lives came before profit. Then again, when has giving a free ride ever been in human nature?

Well isn't it obvious? :eek: How could one in the medical profession even contemplate for a second of losing the profit. What is the world coming to. :eek: :rolleyes:

No it wasn't obvious. Thanks for clearing that up, though. :(

As far as I know a hospital just has to stabilize a patient and after that they can dump him off on a crappier hospital that accepts the uninsured.

That's crap. But not quite as crappy as just leaving the guy to die.

lol I just found it funny how money would be the primary interest of a medical practitioner as opposed to saving lives. I can hardly attest to being familiar with the Hippocratic Oath, yet one would think saving lives came before profit. Then again, when has giving a free ride ever been in human nature?

Also known as the "Hypocrite Oath". ;)

Its not just the doctors, but the hospitals themselves and insurance companies who decide your healthcare outcomes. And they dont have to take any oaths. Not that theyd keep them mind you...

I'm in favore of it. Those who are currently uninsured tend to go to emergency rooms for things like colds, driving up the cost and the wait times for those with serious emergencies. However, I fear the idea of SARs or bird flu breaking out somewhere in the US and it not being caught because the person couldn't afford medical care and chose not to see a doctor till it was too late and they had come into contact with many people.

lol I just found it funny how money would be the primary interest of a medical practitioner as opposed to saving lives. I can hardly attest to being familiar with the Hippocratic Oath, yet one would think saving lives came before profit. Then again, when has giving a free ride ever been in human nature?
Why in the world is a physician's time worthless? That's essentially what you are saying, isn't it? That a doctor should willingly give medical care to someone without expectation of compensation? That's a pretty odd way of looking at the world.

Also known as the "Hypocrite Oath". ;)

Its not just the doctors, but the hospitals themselves and insurance companies who decide your healthcare outcomes. And they dont have to take any oaths. Not that theyd keep them mind you...
Oh-so true.

Why in the world is a physician's time worthless? That's essentially what you are saying, isn't it? That a doctor should willingly give medical care to someone without expectation of compensation? That's a pretty odd way of looking at the world.

I dont think thats what he was saying at all. He didnt say they shouldnt be compensated. He said that saving lives should come before profit. Dont you agree?

Why in the world is a physician's time worthless? That's essentially what you are saying, isn't it? That a doctor should willingly give medical care to someone without expectation of compensation? That's a pretty odd way of looking at the world.
If a person is in dire need of help? Yes. And seeing as a doctor's vocation is treating those in need, I don't see how this is an odd way of looking at the world. If a doctor sees someone dying, do you honestly think the first thing that would pop out of their mouth would be "So will you be paying in cash or credit card?"

Scenario: An ambulance takes a guy to the emergency room because he's having a heart attack. He doesn't have insurance, however. So, let him die on the spot, or save his life and lose profit?
I'd say that would be a covered form of emergency treatment. Somebody's in trouble, the ambulance picks them up and deals with the immediate problem. If it turns out they then need six figures of medication a year or they'll die in a week, that's not the hospital's problem. That's why it works for the government to handle that sort of thing rather than the markets - the government will just handle it (the routine or sudden-emergency situation) without the profit question coming into play. The market gets to handle the profitable situation by selling the poor schmoe expensive drugs to maintain his life, or not selling them if he can't pay (and therefore can't afford to live).
Under the current system, that *would* be a valid question, with the markets determining whether people get even the routine or emergency treatment.

Why in the world is a physician's time worthless? That's essentially what you are saying, isn't it? That a doctor should willingly give medical care to someone without expectation of compensation? That's a pretty odd way of looking at the world.

My parents are both doctors, and they work easily 9 hours a day, my mom works more. The job is really stressful too, so yeah, doctors deserve the pay.

Not to mention those malpractice insurance costs.

I dont think thats what he was saying at all. He didnt say they shouldnt be compensated. He said that saving lives should come before profit. Dont you agree?
Precisely.

Precisely.

Here's something I heard from one of my parents' friends, who incidentally is a doctor. It went something like this:

"Look buddy, I didn't go to medical school for six years, and I don't work 10 hours a day just so I could make $50,000 a year"

I tend to agree with that statement.

Here's something I heard from one of my parents' friends, who incidentally is a doctor. It went something like this:

"Look buddy, I didn't go to medical school for eight years, and I don't work 10 hours a day just so I could make $50,000 a year"

I tend to agree with that statement.
As do I. Especially since I am studying Law (well, changing over to Economics...but just from one year of it I can see why lawyers follow the mentality you stated). However, if a person's life is at stake, I would think it inhuman to simply let them die because they cannot cough up the cash, so to speak. Or maybe it is human, all too very human. :rolleyes:

To be fair, in a properly organised government-sponsored healthcare system, the doctor would be receiving just as much as in a completely private system.

It's just that the government pays the doctor (or the part that the patient doesn't pay himself) with tax money. At no point is it suggested that the doctor doesn't get the money he or she deserves.

But then, if you don't organise it properly, Doctors get the f*ck outta here:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,399537,00.html

I dont think thats what he was saying at all. He didnt say they shouldnt be compensated. He said that saving lives should come before profit. Dont you agree?
Life isn't as altruistic as your question supposes.

Let's repose the question. If a person walks into a doctor's office and wants treatment, should the doctor expect payment? Yes, absolutely. If the person cannot pay, should the doctor then treat them? That's a question of conscience and up to the particular physician. Does he have the right to refuse? Again, absolutely.

Now let's say a doctor comes upon a traffic accident. He sees a person that has been badly injured. Should he treat the person? Yes. Should he expect compensation? No. Should he be held liable for any malpractice? No.

As do I. Especially since I am studying Law (well, changing over to Economics...but just from one year of it I can see why lawyers follow the mentality you stated). However, if a person's life is at stake, I would think it inhuman to simply let them die because they cannot cough up the cash, so to speak. Or maybe it is human, all too very human. :rolleyes:

And yet, I'm in favor or universal health care. Paradox, no?

Now let's say a doctor comes upon a traffic accident. He sees a person that has been badly injured. Should he treat the person? Yes. Should he expect compensation? No. Should he be held liable for any malpractice? No.
Agreed. Even so, in the UK, at least at Common law, even if a doctor is treating a patient gratuitiously he/she is expected to apply the same standard of care and skill as though it were that the patient had requested the care.

Life isn't as altruistic as your question supposes.

Let's repose the question. If a person walks into a doctor's office and wants treatment, should the doctor expect payment? Yes, absolutely. If the person cannot pay, should the doctor then treat them? That's a question of conscience and up to the particular physician. Does he have the right to refuse? Again, absolutely.

Now let's say a doctor comes upon a traffic accident. He sees a person that has been badly injured. Should he treat the person? Yes. Should he expect compensation? No. Should he be held liable for any malpractice? No.

Well, that pretty much spells it out as far as I'm concerned. :cool:

And yet, I'm in favor or universal health care. Paradox, no?
Very little in this world remains a paradox to me :p

Life isn't as altruistic as your question supposes.

Let's repose the question. If a person walks into a doctor's office and wants treatment, should the doctor expect payment? Yes, absolutely. If the person cannot pay, should the doctor then treat them? That's a question of conscience and up to the particular physician. Does he have the right to refuse? Again, absolutely.

Now let's say a doctor comes upon a traffic accident. He sees a person that has been badly injured. Should he treat the person? Yes. Should he expect compensation? No. Should he be held liable for any malpractice? No.


I have in no way suggested doctors shouldnt be paid what theyre worth. They go to school forever, work in less that ideal circumstances and I think sure they be compensated well. I do not believe that people should have to choose between putting food on the table or going to the doctor. So whatever we have to do to make sure doctors get their Mercedes and Golf resort passes, and that people receive proper medical attention...then lets do it.

If I were a doctor and a person couldnt pay, I'd treat them anyway. Call me Dr Quinn if you want.

If I were a doctor and a person couldnt pay, I'd treat them anyway. Call me Dr Quinn if you want.
Hello, Dr Quinn if you want!
*ba-dum-bump*

Hello, Dr Quinn if you want!
*ba-dum-bump*

*booo! hissss*

no that was good;)

Agreed. Even so, in the UK, at least at Common law, even if a doctor is treating a patient gratuitiously he/she is expected to apply the same standard of care and skill as though it were that the patient had requested the care.

It's the same in the US. Charitable immunity was removed a long time ago.

It's the same in the US. Charitable immunity was removed a long time ago.

Indeed. :)

Because only the government is in position to prevent epidemics of such scales. Just remember the outbreaks of diphtheria or smallpox.
Only?

Evidence?



There are things governments are needed for. Preventative healthcare on such a grand scale is one of them. To go "oh, but I want the government to leave me alone" is just plain old stupid when it comes to this. Or do you long back to the plague?
False dichotomy and argument from assumed adverse consequences.

Only?
Evidence?
False dichotomy and argument from assumed adverse consequences.

Evidence exists that governmental entities have been successful in improving public health and preventing widespread illnesses. No other groups have had anywhere near that sort of success rate. So it's not a provable assertion that no other groups can do it as well, but it is supportable that no other group has demonstrated the capacity for large-scale public health intervention as well as governments have.
As for preventing plagues, herd immunity is a well-documented concept ranging beyond just medical concerns - when a certain percentage of people in Boston got the LoJack anti-theft systems for their cars, car crime declined dramatically for everyone, because it became less sustainable to steal cars given the miss rate.

The UK system is not free, we all pay for it through National Insurance taken from our pay packet. What it means is that quality of care and availability is equal for everyone who seeks treatment.

To be honest I don't feel as if the government is interfering in my life. Look at it this way, the government (well it’s various departments) run the army, police force, customs and excise. They provide education, paved roads, street lighting, refuse collection etc. So you really can’t get away from ‘government interference’.

Scenario: An ambulance takes a guy to the emergency room because he's having a heart attack. He doesn't have insurance, however. So, let him die on the spot, or save his life and lose profit?

Quite technically, the Doctors are seperate from the administrators who are in charge of the money aspects. Some obscure law says that a doctor can only work for another doctor, so doctors form "groups" which are hired by the hospitals. THe hospitals give the doctors priveleges to work in their location, and they pay the groups, which pay the individual doctors. The sole exception to this is federal hospitals on army bases and veteran's hospitals. At least, thats how my mother once explained it to me, and shes a doctor.

Edit: Doctors in private practice are obviously exceptions, as are freelancers. They still arent employed directly by a hospital though.

Healthcare should be available to everyone, period. I dont understand how you can deny someone treatment or preventive care just because they cant pay. Letting someone die off when you can prevent it is almost like murder.

Most physicians still provide charity care and treat Medicaid patients, but if physician costs continue to increase while payments decline, physicians will have no choice but to limit the amount of free and discounted care they provide in order to sustain their practices. Though the number of physicians providing charity care has declined, its not as rampant as people are making it out to be.

Fewer physicians are seeing charity cases (Study was published 2002). (http://www.caregivers-usa.org/news/charity.html)

Charity cases taken on beginning to stabilize (Study was done over 2004-05). (http://www.hschange.org/CONTENT/812/)

A third of physicians said the number of uninsured patients in the United States has reached the crisis level...... (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/print/15330.html)

There are quite a few organizations that help people who are classified as "undeserved". Even when a doctor is unable to treat the patient he/she can contact an organization who is willing to help find a doctor near them, willing to treat them for free, or at a lower cost.

ZIAD helps find uninsured patients, physicians who are willing to treat them (http://www.ziadhealthcare.org/news.htm)

The problem with treating patients who are uninsured, especially for smaller hospitals, is that they eat the cost of treatment. Its not just doctors salaries that aren't paid when a patient is unable to afford care. Its the supplies used, the man hours, the bed taken up, the paper work filed. Smaller hospitals with a limited number of beds have trouble finding the funding when more and more trauma patients are uninsured. (http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050307/OPINION/503070338/1015)

As of right now I'm all for treating every patient that walks (or can't walk) through the doors of the hospital where I work. I often wonder, however, if in the future I'll feel the same way after working 120 hours a week on patients who can't pay me for my time, after spending so much of my life with my nose buried in a textbook or listening to a resident lecture me on how to save their lives.

Evidence exists that governmental entities have been successful in improving public health and preventing widespread illnesses. No other groups have had anywhere near that sort of success rate.
...because the governments have arrogated to themselves that ability.


So it's not a provable assertion that no other groups can do it as well, but it is supportable that no other group has demonstrated the capacity for large-scale public health intervention as well as governments have.
One wonders if the governmental policies cause some of the health issues as well.


As for preventing plagues, herd immunity is a well-documented concept ranging beyond just medical concerns - when a certain percentage of people in Boston got the LoJack anti-theft systems for their cars, car crime declined dramatically for everyone, because it became less sustainable to steal cars given the miss rate.
And that shows how, privately, individuals can do something.

Healthcare should be available to everyone, period. I dont understand how you can deny someone treatment or preventive care just because they cant pay. Letting someone die off when you can prevent it is almost like murder.


Thank god I live in England and thank god for the NHS

When I was pregnant with my son, I had a condition known as pre-eclampsia (sorry if its misspelt) and it meant that I had to go into hospital because it is a life threatening condition for mother and baby, I was in hospital in a private room for almost 7 weeks, I got the best of care, which included seeing the consultant every day and scans and tests etc. Eventually it was decided that my baby was better 'out than in' and so I was induced, I was able to choose the midwife who delivered my son, as I had built up a good relationship with her in the weeks in hospital, she changed her work pattern to deliver my baby, who was safe and well. When I had been home for a week or so, I had a sudden bleed and got taken in by ambulance, again to a private room and had all the best care available to me and my son. All of this did not cost me one penny (other than the national insurance that is incredibly low imho and I was not working at the time as I already had two small children under 4) I have been told that this would have cost over a $1,000,000 dollars in the US..is that true? and if it is, then it is something the nation should be sorting out with a bigger priority than going to war. In a civilised country NO ONE should be denied health care because they cant pay.

Vote on my poll and tell me what you think.
Your poll offers too few options. I advocate basic healthcare for everyone, especially children, but the issue is far too complex to permit of only a few options.

I have been told that this would have cost over a $1,000,000 dollars in the US..is that true? and if it is, then it is something the nation should be sorting out with a bigger priority than going to war. In a civilised country NO ONE should be denied health care because they cant pay.
No, but it would have been in six figures ... IF you had the wherewithal to pay. That the US has no healthcare for the indigent is completely misinformed.

So what would have happened to me in the US? would I have had the same quality of care if I was not able to afford (and I wouldn't have been) the six figure sum?

As an aside, my Canadian is on a regular prescription that used to cost him a huge amount to fill in Canada, and yet here he just pays the dispensing fee of £6 or so and gets three months supply. How does that work in the US? I dont have to pay to visit my Dr. and I dont have to pay for my children to visit, or the dentist (and they have had orthodontist treatment and have beautiful straight teeth, all free), or to get any medication.

Thank god I live in England and thank god for the NHS

When I was pregnant with my son, I had a condition known as pre-eclampsia (sorry if its misspelt) and it meant that I had to go into hospital because it is a life threatening condition for mother and baby, I was in hospital in a private room for almost 7 weeks, I got the best of care, which included seeing the consultant every day and scans and tests etc. Eventually it was decided that my baby was better 'out than in' and so I was induced, I was able to choose the midwife who delivered my son, as I had built up a good relationship with her in the weeks in hospital, she changed her work pattern to deliver my baby, who was safe and well. When I had been home for a week or so, I had a sudden bleed and got taken in by ambulance, again to a private room and had all the best care available to me and my son. All of this did not cost me one penny (other than the national insurance that is incredibly low imho and I was not working at the time as I already had two small children under 4) I have been told that this would have cost over a $1,000,000 dollars in the US..is that true? and if it is, then it is something the nation should be sorting out with a bigger priority than going to war. In a civilised country NO ONE should be denied health care because they cant pay.

you would have recieved the same treatment because there was a baby involved that was in danger. They have to treat you and your unborn child even if you can't pay even if you don't have insurance, even if you don't qualify for medical assistance through the government.

I had about the same story with my first kid, my hospital bill was well over 300,000 thank God I had insurance. If I hadn't then sometimes the hospital will drop off most of your bill if you agree to pay some of it. There are charities around that pay hospital bills too, all you have to do is contact them.

He and the girls have insurance, I don't. I know healthcare is expensive, I would rather pay it, than have the government any more involved in my life than it already is.
So, your health and welfare is less important than that of your husband and children? You are one of those fortunate individuals that nothing unfortunate will ever happen to you?

Which seems to suggest to me that the problem with free health care for the US doesn't lie with health care itself, but instead some dubious legal practice or tradition. How did this insane thing come to pass?

Unlike the other advanced nations of the world, the US alone relies extensively on private sources to fund healthcare. Originally created to tie employees to their jobs and discourage them from joining trade unions, employers offered health insurance. The government of the time saw this opportunity as a way to provide health insurance to the masses without raising taxes and encouraged the practice by offering tax exemptions to companies who offered health benefits. Ironically, trade unions also ended up bargaining for healthcare insurance as it benefited its members. Today, approximately 60% obtain health insurance through employment, and government agencies provide health insurance to 25% of Americans.

It arguable that the US has the best high-end healthcare (e.g. cancer, AIDS, and surgical treatments), but it generally fails to provide adequate low-end care to its poorest citizens. It is interesting to note that the US spends by far the most money per capita on healthcare, about 50 percent more than Switzerland who is second. Yet it does not see an appreciable increase in life expectancy. In fact, America has one of the lowest life expectancies amongst the twenty wealthiest nations. We spend twice as much money per person than the French or Canadians, but they have two years more to live on average. Similarly, the Germans also spend half as much as we do, but they live for a year longer.

One of the biggest places the US's current healthcare system with the most fat to trim is the ballooning administrative costs of private healthcare. There are bloated executive salaries and company bureaucracies, excessive advertising, and duplicated administrative coverage for the thousands of independent health plans. These costs contribute nothing to public health, but take up about about third of health premiums. One of the less virtuous practices exhibited by insurance companies is to court those unlikely to file claims while avoiding those more likely to actually use their coverage and reduce insurance company profit. This policy ends up increasing the burden of healthcare to the rest of society. Instead of seeking treatment earlier in their illness when it is both easier and cheaper to treat, they end up waiting until the malady becomes serious. This delay puts them in our emergency rooms, which society still pays for with state funding, where care is more expensive.

Half of all bankruptcies also result from medical expenses, and most of those falling into debt from illness are middle class workers with health insurance. Upwards of eighty percent of those uninsured are either workers or reside in a household with workers. Because Medicare covers the elderly, and Medicaid covers the poorest of us, the working poor and middle class are those most at risk. At the same time, the requirements for Medicaid are constantly becoming more stringent leaving more and more people without coverage. Both Medicaid and Medicare are more efficient than private insurance, but neither system has longevity.

According to the latest census statistics, 45 million Americans lack health insurance. Additionally, another 16 million Americans are underinsured, meaning they would lack coverage in a catastrophe. Healthcare is treated more like a privilege to those who can afford it rather than a right granted to all, and universal healthcare would help correct this injustice. After all, isn’t Life one of the inalienable rights the US holds most dear?

So, your health and welfare is less important than that of your husband and children? You are one of those fortunate individuals that nothing unfortunate will ever happen to you?
no, it is better for us financially for me to pay my own health care out of pocket. My husband and my children have to have insurance, thier medical bills without (even if they don't get sick or break a leg or something) add up to over a million a year, the premiums for them are very expensive to add me too would cost about $800 a month, right now I am paying on average $100 a month for health care, I am saving $700. If something does happen to me (like last year when I had to have gallbladder surgery) we just pay it out or get a deal with the hospital.

you would have recieved the same treatment because there was a baby involved that was in danger. They have to treat you and your unborn child even if you can't pay even if you don't have insurance, even if you don't qualify for medical assistance through the government.

I had about the same story with my first kid, my hospital bill was well over 300,000 thank God I had insurance. If I hadn't then sometimes the hospital will drop off most of your bill if you agree to pay some of it. There are charities around that pay hospital bills too, all you have to do is contact them.

I would not have been able to pay any of that kind of bill, other than a couple of hundred pounds tops. I cant beleive that I would have to go to ask a charity to help pay. WOW it makes me feel much more positive feelings about the NHS, I also have had two surgeries in the last 3 years and they were both free, and as I dont work, I dont pay NI, although my partner does but it is a negligable amount compared to private medical insurance. I would never have to think twice about going to the hospital or the Dr with myself or my children because it might cost me too much or put up my 'premiums' I feel totally lucky because of that.

I would not have been able to pay any of that kind of bill, other than a couple of hundred pounds tops. I cant beleive that I would have to go to ask a charity to help pay. WOW it makes me feel much more positive feelings about the NHS, I also have had two surgeries in the last 3 years and they were both free, and as I dont work, I dont pay NI, although my partner does but it is a negligable amount compared to private medical insurance. I would never have to think twice about going to the hospital or the Dr with myself or my children because it might cost me too much or put up my 'premiums' I feel totally lucky because of that.
what exactly is so bad about going to a charity. I would rather recieve help from someone who wanted to pay to help me than from the government who forces people to pay to help me.

Everyone who works pays a small percentage to National Insurance, it pays for the Police, Schools, Health Service etc

I dont think that in a civilised modern country people should have to rely on charity to get health treatment. I assume that you are happy to call the police if you need them? or the fire department...it is the same, its like saying you have to pay the firemen to come and put out your burning home, if you dont have enough money they wont come...but its ok, you can ask the local charity to send along an engine instead.

Everyone who works pays a small percentage to National Insurance, it pays for the Police, Schools, Health Service etc

I dont think that in a civilised modern country people should have to rely on charity to get health treatment. I assume that you are happy to call the police if you need them? or the fire department...it is the same, its like saying you have to pay the firemen to come and put out your burning home, if you dont have enough money they wont come...but its ok, you can ask the local charity to send along an engine instead.
okay. I don't think you made a very good comparison since charities don't run police and fire engines, but yeah, I suppose I see what you are trying to say I guess.

So what would have happened to me in the US? would I have had the same quality of care if I was not able to afford (and I wouldn't have been) the six figure sum?.

You would probably have received the same quality of healthcare, but you more than likely would be facing bankruptcy due to the bills...even with health insurance. At the very least, your financial situation would be very unenviable for the foreseeable future.

I believe healthcare to be a basic human right. I don't like the sound of the US system, but then I don't really find great favour with the NHS either. Egh. I think the best answer is simply not to get sick.:p

Healthcare is not a basic right.

But I doubt the ability of the market to freely provide the necessary healthcare for those who should be able to receive it.

So should society provide the privilege? I don't know.

Healthcare is not a basic right.

But I doubt the ability of the market to freely provide the necessary healthcare for those who should be able to receive it.

So should society provide the privilege? I don't know.
I don't think there can be an absolute yes or no answer to this. Each society must choose for itself. If one decides that yes, society as a whole will provide for healthcare, we should respect that decision and shut up about it (*stares at the Cuba haters*), and visa versa (*puts tape over mouth to avoid ranting about US healthcare ever again*).

no, it is better for us financially for me to pay my own health care out of pocket. My husband and my children have to have insurance, thier medical bills without (even if they don't get sick or break a leg or something) add up to over a million a year, the premiums for them are very expensive to add me too would cost about $800 a month, right now I am paying on average $100 a month for health care, I am saving $700. If something does happen to me (like last year when I had to have gallbladder surgery) we just pay it out or get a deal with the hospital.
So, you go on a wing and a prayer in the hope that God forbid that anything bad happens to you?

Also, it seems like $800 per month for one person is an extremely high premium?

So, you go on a wing and a prayer in the hope that God forbid that anything bad happens to you?
doesn't everyone hope that something bad doesn't happen to them?

I have to look at it from a less emotional perspective, I can only afford health insurance for 3 people in the family, shouldn't the 3 people covered be the people who need it most, the sickest?

I can't afford insurance for myself, I can afford to pay the occasional doctor bill, if something bad happens we will just have to figure out what to do about that when it does happen. ;)

Also, it seems like $800 per month for one person is an extremely high premium?
pre-existing conditions, high risk

I live in a country (UK) where free healthcare isn't just something we want, it is expected! When NHS standards fall, there is uproar!

I don't think there can be an absolute yes or no answer to this. Each society must choose for itself. If one decides that yes, society as a whole will provide for healthcare, we should respect that decision and shut up about it (*stares at the Cuba haters*), and visa versa (*puts tape over mouth to avoid ranting about US healthcare ever again*).

If you love Cuba so much, why don't you just marry it?:p

But really, I couldn't agree with you more.

doesn't everyone hope that something bad doesn't happen to them?

I have to look at it from a less emotional perspective, I can only afford health insurance for 3 people in the family, shouldn't the 3 people covered be the people who need it most, the sickest?

I can't afford insurance for myself, I can afford to pay the occasional doctor bill, if something bad happens we will just have to figure out what to do about that when it does happen. ;)

pre-existing conditions, high risk
In Canada, everyone has full healthcare coverage irrelevant of risk factors, and there is no need for anyone to go bankrupt for major surgery or extended hospitalization.

Your dependency is greater, especially since you are high risk. To suggest that you are independent, you are only fooling yourself. BTW, this is nothing personal, it is just the way I see it. I believe that public healthcare should be provided for all the citizens.

Why should people live in fear?

If you love Cuba so much, why don't you just marry it?:p Because Chile is longer:)

In Canada, everyone has full healthcare coverage irrelevant of risk factors, and there is no need for anyone to go bankrupt for major surgery or extended hospitalization.

Your dependency is greater, especially since you are high risk. To suggest that you are independent, you are only fooling yourself. BTW, this is nothing personal, it is just the way I see it. I believe that public healthcare should be provided for all the citizens.

Why should people live in fear?
I don't take it personally, I would love to have health insurance, but it is a luxury here, a very expenisive luxury. Given my choices I choose to insure my husband and my children. I know it's a dangerous game, but it's the best option I have right now.