[Closed] American Health Care

theyEye

Your choice is an illusion, and only available while you have the cash.

And based upon the level of tax/NI I paid and the availability of private healthcare I too could have an opinion like yours, but having seen the US system and how it treats those that can't afford - no way is it worth me saving a few quid, (and possibly) better treatment.

Also as said previously I've worked in the States, and worked with people who couldn't move jobs due to the possibility of the new Health Insurer not taking on pre-existing conditions of their families. This to a European was a bit of an eye-opener.

One aspect of the new initiative is the prohibiting insurance companies from turning down pre-existing conditions and cancelling coverage when someone becomes ill/disabled--most in the US agree with that as a needed change--but as I said earlier, their totally ignoring the needed tort reform is unbelievably stupid. My wife is in healthcare and sees the impact every day. People here believe major change is needed--it's more the way it was done that has people up in arms.

b r -- very true, it's your choice when you have the cash. But that was the earlier point, I believe that anyone can have the cash if they really wanted to. Very rare cases such as Down's syndrome excepted.

Having your employer provide you with health insurance isn't the optimal situation, agreed. Everyone should have their portable plan. And if they want a bigger risk pool, hook up with their friends.

+1 for tort reform. It's madness.

So my hypothetical man with downs has to rely on charity? Thats nice,. What if he is a gobby get and no one likes him.

Some interesting opinions here but is there so much passion from the "American Right" about being FORCED to pay for, for example, the Military?

So the US is skint ?

Most of the rest of the Western World can afford to provide health care for it's citizens, but the US can't afford it ?

Only "skint" when it comes to healthcare, while debating the renewal of it's still large nuclear arsenal. I'll have to dig up the report from somewhere, but I do remember that while the report advocates nuclear weapons renewal, it does not mention anywhere the current economic realities that the US currently faces.

Strange that theres much bleating about the affordability of healthcare, but not an eyelid batted over the $685 billion that will be spent on Defence in 2010.

Like with most democratic countries, corporations run the show and its the MID and health insurance corps (amongst others)that run the US.

Doubt the US will ever be reticent to maintain a strong military. It's an unfortunate fact in this world it's needed. Right or wrong, the US military has pulled a lot of chestnuts out of the fire around the world over the last 75 years--at untold cost in dollars and probably 300,000+ military who died doing so. We have made some mistakes too, but don't think our allies can say we don't step up to the plate when necessary.

It's an unfortunate fact in this world it's needed.

I don't think there is any question that the US is one of the most charitable countries in the world

No, not if you choose to ignore that the US has a population of over a quarter of a billion people and, how wealthy it is.

But if you take into consideration how much of Gross National Income is given in economic aid, then the US is hardly amongst the most charitable countries in the world.

This is 8 years old, but it gives you an idea :

[img] [/img]

Of course if you were to deduct the $2 billion plus the US gives Israel every year, then the figure would be even less impressive.

I would just like to make clear I'm not a Republican. Those guys are crazy.

The US military is undoubtedly too expensive. By a magnitude or two. But the military, as a whole at least, cannot work in a market. There cannot be many players/competitors, all constantly going in and out of business -- it wouldn't work, since the whole has to be organized and ready at all times. Unlike hospitals, doctors offices, etc., which work well as many independent players. Parts of the military can work in markets, but not the entity as a whole. It's a monopoly, which provides a service, security (ahem), which all citizens of the a particular country consume. Therefore everyone has to pay up.
Sad but true, and as much as I dislike national taxes, this is one of the few things that it makes sense for. But they should be much smaller.

Same thing with the police, except at a more local level.

......much as I dislike national taxes, this is one of the few things that it makes sense for.

So the only thing you are happy to see taxes being spent on, is the military ?

Fascinating.

Doubt the US will ever be reticent to maintain a strong military. It's an unfortunate fact in this world it's needed. Right or wrong, the US military has pulled a lot of chestnuts out of the fire around the world over the last 75 years--at untold cost in dollars and probably 300,000+ military who died doing so. We have made some mistakes too, but don't think our allies can say we don't step up to the plate when necessary.

The US won't. They may arrive a little late to the party on occasions(ww2 😉 ) but the current military policy is there to support it's economic interests around the world. You don't have over 700 military bases in various forms around the world for the good of all. Not saying they're evil when you see a carrier loaded with helicopters and aid parked off Haiti after the earthquake. China my become a bigger state economically, but the US will be spending big bucks on its military to maintain its economically dominant position to the detriment of other departments for a long time to come.

ernie_lynch -- is that chart for private giving, or governmental? I'd assume governmental, which defeats the whole purpose of giving, as the money is first forcefully collected. Which irks many that it's being taken away from, including me, so the government tends to avoid then giving it away.

I suspect, althought am not positive, that if you look at private giving, both within the country and for causes outside of it, the chart would look very different. Americans are, I think, very charitable when they have the choice in where the money goes.

That's why your Down's syndrome guy would likely be doing alright, TJ.

Health care = Socialism = intervention = take away their freedom blah blah blah ...

Medial insurance = Capitalism = nature takes its course = survival of the fittest.

HHhmmm ... what they really want is for everyone to hand off their $$$.

🙄

ernie, did I say ONLY thing that the taxes should be spent on should be the military? No.

Taxes should be spent on the workings of government which HAVE to be monopolies by their very nature, and produce things or services that everyone consumes. Law making bodies. The courts. AND any bits which have a monopoly on using force. Which includes the military.

This doesn't make sense to you?

As long as I'm at it, "law making bodies" should include all campaign funds for politicians, so that elections cannot be bought and the lawmakers are not indebted to lobbying special interests. But again, that's another rant for another time.

You're right, I know nothing about healthcare. But if I was really sick, I'd go back to the States. Maybe irrationally, but that's just a feeling that I have.

Why wait until then?

Americans are, I think, very charitable .....

I'm sure they are. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the American people. It's US governments past and present, which I choose to criticise.

And it doesn't make me anti-American btw. Anymore than [i]you[/i] vehemently criticising US government policy on health care on this thread, makes [i]you[/i] anti-American.

Although I do think your, "I couldn't give a rats ass about my fellow Americans", does make you somewhat unpatriotic.

When I mentioned charitable giving I was referring to individual citizens giving--we aren't reluctant to open our wallets--however when the government launches into wealth distribution, it's time to vote their sorry a$$e$ out of office.

ernie, did I say ONLY thing that the taxes should be spent on should be the military? No.

No, that's very true........you also said that you were happy to see your taxes spent on the police.

So that's the military and the police.

And the courts.

Fascinating.

I do very much give a rats a$$ about most of my fellow Americans (and I do contribute to charity on an ongoing basis), but the ones who don't/won't work and want a hand-out---and a government that panders to them to get votes----not so much!!

The fundamental difference is that we believe that good quality healthcare should be available to all as of right irrespective of the ability to pay. We brits may differ on on the best way of achieving this but we all agree that healthcare is a right not a privilege.

Its one of the things to be proud about.

....however when the government launches into wealth distribution, it's time to vote their sorry a$$e$ out of office.

Oh I see. So the reason that Luxenbourg, for example, is so generous with foreign aid, is that the people of Luxenbourg don't care what their government does with their money ?

I must say, this is a very interesting insight into the mindset of the American Right.

Arguing for the freedom to be able not to give a rat's ass about my fellow Americans, and the same freedom for them not to give a rat's ass about me, is very patriotic. Reaping what YOU sow, not what your neighbour has sown is what makes the country special. It would be a shame to lose it.

Ernie, for the last time, before I give up. Taxes should be spent on monopoly services that everyone consumes. If you think that makes me a neo-conservative war-mongering knob, then I give up.

gonefishin - Member

You're right, I know nothing about healthcare. But if I was really sick, I'd go back to the States. Maybe irrationally, but that's just a feeling that I have.

Why wait until then?

Harsh and mean spirited. Wouldn't suggest that as a strategy for success in any context. Just having a good natured argument, which I assume you're enjoying since you're still looking.

we all agree that healthcare is a right not a privilege

"...is a right and not something you should have to pay to opt into" is probably more appropriate. Although I doubt that everyone here shares that view, the vast majority probably do, and it seems to work acceptably well, so great!

But this kind of thing doesn't gel well with the fundamental principles that make the States what they are.

When I talk of redistribution of wealth, I mean the government taking our hard-earned cash and giving it to the lazy-minded who don't/won't work. Sharing it with deserving people in the country or out of the country is a different story.

That makes the states what they are - a disgracefully poor child mortality? and people dying because they are poor and have chronic illness?

A child is 2 to 3 times more likely to die at birth or in infancy than in Europe - thats a lot of dead babies

So deserving poor are OK then? How about mentally ill? Alcoholics? Brain damaged from drug overdoses? People who have strokes from poor lifestyles?

It stinks. Deserving poor, charities for the disabled - handouts rather than rights

it stinks to high heaven. Let the poor die eh?

theyEye - Member

we all agree that healthcare is a right not a privilege

"...is a right and not something you should have to pay to opt into" is probably more appropriate. Although I doubt that everyone here shares that view, the vast majority probably do, and it seems to work acceptably well, so great!

But this kind of thing doesn't gel well with the fundamental principles that make the States what they are.

There is no such thing as right to this and to that. You reap what you sow and/or face the consequences of the nature.

You give or help if you want to but no one should dictate to you as your right or wrong.

🙄

chewk - are you saying you don't subscribe to the "free at the point of demand" healthcare of the UK as a right? I see that as my right as a Briton

Ernie............... If you think that makes me a neo-conservative war-mongering knob, then I give up.

I have no idea what your views on America's foreign adventures are. Although you clearly prefer to see your taxes go to the military rather than health care......I was actually toying with the idea of asking you that question next.

But you are very obviously, an American Conservative. And I [i]genuinely[/i] find that interesting - because you are so utterly different to British Conservatives.

And my constant references to the "American Right" are simply because it shouldn't forgotten that you pair of clowns, don't speak for all Americans..........I watch the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. So I know how strongly so many Americans oppose you. In fact the majority of Americans it would appear, judging by the last Presidential election result.

Have a nice day.

TandemJeremy - Member

chewk - are you saying you don't subscribe to the "free at the point of demand" healthcare of the UK as a right? I see that as my right as a Briton

If it is there so be it but if it is not there then why should one claim it to be their rights?

Put it this way consider the period of time prior to NHS. Did no NHS wipe out the population? No. There might be sickness and death but it is the same all over.

However, I will help if I can but I cannot tell others to help.

Yes, you see that as your right because of NHS.
🙄

The lies and misinformation regarding our 'socialized' system have not only come from the American Right, but from our very own Conservative wingnuts with nothing but their political careers in mind:

[url= http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/ourkingdom-theme/thomas-ash/2009/08/18/daniel-hannans-criticisms-of-the-nhs ]Dan Hannan's NHS lies[/url]

Compassionate Conservatism is a definite oxymoron.

Individual can still be compassionate towards others but when it comes to the masses things will turn ugly, especially when one that dictates the right or wrong to the masses.

🙄

Why the eye rolling?

Sorry, bit late on all this, just had a read through and i'm none the wiser, is that theyEye guy a troll?

theyEye - Member

Having your employer provide you with health insurance isn't the optimal situation, agreed. Everyone should have their portable plan. And if they want a bigger risk pool, hook up with their friends.

Hang on, isn't he suggesting that we hook up with friends, get a joint policy?

Well that is a smaller risk isn't it? And what you are in fact advocating is a system whereby people put their cash into a pool, if you get ill your covered?!? Sounds like the UK system to me.

What you fail to understand theyEye is that if you live in a society you pay for others regardless, you pay for others to be imprisoned if they commit crimes so that you can venture outside without being a little bit murdered, you pay for the roads you use and the ones you don't...... basically you are paying for loads of stuff you may never use but other people do.

What you want is THE RIGHT to not pay for the improved health of the most vulnerable people in society, basically that's not really on is it mate.

Life is a gamble, do you know your not going to get cancer, your wife, your kids? I know i don't but i'm happy that i live somewhere that won't bankrupt my wife if i have a long drawn out disease and inadequate insurance to pay for my treatment.

Don't even get me started on your 'anyone can earn more money' BS, who is going to teach your kids, police your streets, clean your f'in hospitals, and an average house costs 8 times their wages, how the hell would they afford the insurance. Think about it, if they paid these people more, your taxes would increase, your insurance would go up, you'd be just as bad off.

It's the i'm alright Jack attitude that get's me. I'm assuming your either a troll or an idiot. I'm going for idiot.

Morning all. Right:

Everyone has marketable skills

Yes but for many skills supply outstrips demand. Then what?

I don't really see why, in a market, there HAVE to be losers.

Because there will always be some better at making money than others, and by definition those makign money have to take it from someone else (mostly).

If your sister's job isn't giving her what she wants, she should change it. But maybe her priorities are different. Perhaps she likes the place she works, the people, the location, the job, etc. more than she likes having health insurance. And it's her choice

Now, see, I've actually talked to her, rather than just conjecturing about the subject. And believe it or not, she does actually WANT a better paid job (as does just about everyone, obviously). It's just that she has the best job she can currently get. So why don't you ask her why she doesn't earn more?

I find it absolutely incredible that anyone could possibly believe that someone earning £10k a year in a shop actually [b]chooses[/b] that salary rather than £50k a year as say an IT professional. Have yuo actually spoken to another human being ever? Let me tell you something. I make good money, but I would rather earn more. I can't, because I'm not qualified or experienced in the areas that pay well. That kind of blows your theory out of the water does it not?

There is no way that being forced to work harder for my neighbours health insurance is in any way acceptable or fair

The hell it's not. We all live together in society, and we all need to help each other. Otherwise the world is a very bleak place indeed. And people won't help people they don't know about unless you make it law. This I believe is fundamentally right. Love thy neighbour and all that.

Are you saying that if you became unemployed and lost all your savings, that you WOULD NOT seek social security money? That you would have you and your family roaming the streets begging?

I don't have a f*ck you attitude.

Your posts have defined the very essence of f*ckyouishness, which is why I am upset, since you are basically saying f*ck you to everyone, including me. You even said that a few months of a dying woman's life is more important than mine, just because you happen to know her and you don't know me. That is unfathomable.

I think we'd all be okay.

Hahaha! Like in the good old days, before social security and the Labour movement? Thigns were great back then, you were born, you worked all hours for not enough food to live on and you died really early.. oh how we were all fine then.

The argument, in essence, is not about being a d*ck, or being nice

It IS! You are judged by your deeds, of course you are. If you don't want to help others (even ones you don't know) then you are by definition not being nice!

I work like hell for my money, and I should be able to do with it as I please. If I'm a saint, and that something is buying homeless people food, great. If I'm an ass, and it's coke and hookers, that should be my choice.

Mmm, except some of it's not yours. You have a legal, social and moral obligation to pay taxes (as outlined above) so that money was never yours to begin with. In this country at least, you never see it, it disappears from your paycheque before you get it, so why worry about it? If they didn't print those lines on your payslip you'd never know it even existed! People who moan about tax are just seeing some numbers on a piece of paper and getting greedy. Well here you are: £999,999! Wow! What a lot of money! Someone should give that to me!

we continually see people saying they can't afford insurance, or their house payment or their car payment, but they sure can afford $200 sneakers, high-dollar clothes, fancy car, plasma TV, drugs, etc

That is a frickin lame assed excuse to avoid any social responsibility. Of course there are a few people like that, but by trotting that old line out every time someone taxes you you are ignoring the majority of people who are hard working but still disadvantaged and need help.

I believe that anyone can have the cash if they really wanted to

My god.. tell you what.. why don't you go into Tescos and speak to a shelf stacker. Tell them that they only want to make minimum wage and don't want to earn any more - see how many incredulous stares you get.

As above - supply outstrips demand - think about it.

What an eye opener - or rather a rather depressing confirmation of my own shamefully generalised opinion of the American psyche.

Utterly shocking, what a depraved society you come from.

For many years I have been utterly confused by our so called "special relationship" touted by politicians and the media - yet the same pathetic media (and elements across the UK political spectrum) take delight in lambasting and lampooning our european neighbours.

Well I feel that we have far more in common, especially in terms of cultural and humanitarian values, with Europe than we do with the US.

the American psyche

Whoah there.. let's just get one thing straight: There is no 'American psyche'. America is more culturally more diverse than just about any country on earth. So whilst there are plenty of people with these right wing attitudes, there are also a great many decent compassionate altruistic folk too. And just about every point in between.

You really cannot generalise at all. It'd be like comparing Scandinavians with say Serbs. Totally different world.

by definition those makign money have to take it from someone else

That's not true. It's not a zero sum game.

The very fact that the Americans elected Obama on the promise of health care reform pretty much tells me that the views of theyEye et al aren't representative
It's just that they seem to shout the loudest

That's why I said mostly. If you are charging someone for a service you are taking their money.

If you are taking a highly paid job you are stopping someone else from taking it.

You cannot manufacture an unlimited supply of highly paid jobs - if you did, the ensuing inflation would put you right back where you started.

TheyEye needs to have a think about economics before settling on his rosy world view.

Molgrips - if you supply a service to someone and they pay you for it they presumably paid because it was useful to them. Let's suppose it saved them a lot of time, which they then used more productively. Everyone ends up better off.

Yes but if it's food, or heating, or shelter, then all you are is alive, which is exactly where you started. So you've 'gained' nothing (apart from another day of life) but paid out all the same. However the person charging you has made a profit.

But this is by the by, is it not? Simply because there are fewer highly paid jobs than lower paid ones (as the free market dictates, and is really necessary) then there will always be losers.

On the subject of American ideology: the country is so massively irreconcilably polarised (and it's getting worse) that it seems to me that secession for some parts of the country is the only way out. Not that it'll happen, but really you've got different groups of people trying to pull the govt in wildly different directions, and consequently the govt has to sit in the middle which is a place no-one wants it to be.

Whoah there.. let's just get one thing straight: There is no 'American psyche'. America is more culturally more diverse than just about any country on earth. So whilst there are plenty of people with these right wing attitudes, there are also a great many decent compassionate altruistic folk too. And just about every point in between.

You really cannot generalise at all. It'd be like comparing Scandinavians with say Serbs. Totally different world.

I'm very well aware of that - hence the "shamefully generalised" caveat in my opening line.

And I am also aware that political opinion is heavily polarised, with the balance between the religious right / various Republican flavours and Democrat / more "liberal" outlook varying either side, but close to the 50:50 amrk.

Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" give a good (although biased to his own perception) expose of the first Bush election "win" and how finally balanced but politically bitterly divided the voting population was...

Unfortunately though, a Nation's external "image" can be fixed around particularly vocal, influential or high profile groups. (It always depresses / frustrates me how "generalised" US views of the UK seem to centre on a "4 weddings" type stereotype.