American Health Care

When working I had Private Medical insurance provided by my company, and as I was quite senior it covered all my family (including my kids with my ex-wife). It wasn't cheap, over £2.5k pa just in tax.

And while it covered us for practically everything (and all over the world), when I smashed myself up – we called an ambulance and I went to casualty and then spent a few days on a small ward in an NHS hospital after a couple of ops. I came back as an out-patient too.

But while there I got £200 for every day/night I was in, and they paid my private physio (which I guess saved the NHS).

This is how the UK works, and it works well. We have a system that covers us all, and the choice where we can pay for extra.

I've worked in the States, and have seen what their system does to the poor – its not nice, and I for one will quite happily accept the failings in our system, if it means we don't end up with one like theirs.

However, the Trial Lawyers have many in the Democratic party in their pockets and will spend any amount lobbying to avoid any realistic tort reform, since they make untold millions handling the frivolous lawsuits.

If there's one thing just as bad as the American healthcare system, it's the American political system 🙁

Now don't get me wrong, I am not anti-American, I am married to one after all; but those are the two big problems in that country. We have our own problems, of course..

That's right, it's called competition. It's everywhere, and it's what makes the world efficient

It's also what makes it unequal. I am not a communist, nor am I particularly hardline socialist in economic terms, but I firmly believe that being born less intelligent or capable in some way should not consign you do destitution.

You don't have to be the most intelligent or capable to avoid destitution. Everyone has marketable skills, with VERY few exceptions. And for these VERY few exceptions, I'm willing to give up some of my income. But would prefer that process not to be forced.

If everyone had a well paid job, who'd pick strawberries, or clean toilets? If picking strawberries paid well, then they'd cost loads in the supermarket and no-one'd buy them.

If picking strawberries or cleaning toilets was a problem, let's see how long it would take for the process to become automated. Not long, because there would be mad money in inventing automatic strawberry pickers and self cleaning toilets.

I don't really see why, in a market, there HAVE to be losers. It's not a given at all. To give a super oversimplified example: If we think about a market of two people, completely self-sufficent except for picking blueberries and mushrooms, with one picking mushrooms the other blueberries, and coming together to trade them. They trade a quantity or blueberries for a quantity of mushrooms, at a price acceptable to both, and both are happy. It's a stupid example, but it's a market with no losers. So your assumption that a market automatically creates destitute losers isn't necessarily true. Of course one could really screw the other, if the product was, say, healthcare, but then more players would come into the game, and things would get more complicated. But the idea stays the same.

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. And it's okay. I didn't say that everyone who doesn't make money is lazy. It's always a question of priorities.

There is no way that being forced to work harder for my neighbours health insurance is in any way acceptable or fair. Frankly, if he's having trouble, I'd probably help him out, but it has to be MY choice. Or the whole street could help him out, I'd be up for that. As much government as possible should be as close to the people as possible. It goes like this: me->my household->my street->my neighbourhood->my town->my county->my region->my country. And I want as much power as close to me in that chain as possible, so that I'm able to have an effect on outcomes. It's not the place of some bloke in Washington or Downing Street to force me to help my neighbour! Unless I live in Washington or Downing Streep, perhaps, and even then only at a stretch. It's partly because I know a lot more about my neighbour than Downing Street. Whether he's cheating the system. Whether he works hard. Whether he deserves my help. And my neighbours know a lot more about me than Gordon Brown. And you know what? I would trust my neighbours to help me before Mr. Brown.

I don't have a f*ck you attitude. If I had that attitude I wouldn't bother arguing with you — an argument implies that I care what you think. Not only that, but, carrying on from the paragraph above, having a f*ck you attitude would be counter productive if I ever ran into difficulties and needed my neighbours' help. Like I said earlier today, the best way to get ahead is being nice, and that's why I think that, even in a near free-for-all, niceness would generally prevail. However I should be free to have a f*ck you attitude if I wanted to. And you know what? I think we'd all be okay. Because not only can anyone do whatever they set their mind to, but, in essence, when left to their own devices, almost everyone would help their neighbour without being forced into it. I would.

But having been to a random NHS hospital, in Barnet, and a random American hospital, in Syracuse NY, I have healthy doubts

the main difference is anyone who needs to go into the hospital in Barnet can get in – the Syracuse one – only those with insurance – millions would be turned away at the door.

So theyEye.

What are you going to do with the person with downs syndrome – they have a life expectancy of around 60 yrs, They can live independently but will never be able to hold down anything but the most basic of jobs and they will have lifetime health issues with heart problems and gut problems. totally uninsurable. No healthcare for him?

SOrry, too slow typing, the argument moves on while I type.

It's funny that I'm getting such a hostile reception, personally even. The argument, in essence, is not about being a d*ck, or being nice, it's about freedom. I don't want to be FORCED into things that I don't want to do. Like buying someone else health insurance. I'm not against buying someone else health care, I'm against being FORCED to do it. That's all, and I don't think that's unreasonable. 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.

Christian? No thanks. I just don't like people telling me what to do, government, priests, parents, doesn't matter… ith the exception of PeterPoddy telling me how to sag a fork. With that exception, I'm perfectly capable of making my own decisions, thank you very much.

I'm guessing theyEye is a troll – no one could be that stupid!

Except I have an American colleague who is 🙁

Yeah, Down's syndrome is one of the few exceptions of people who probably would have trouble in our society. So I'd write a check straight away, along with millions of other Americans. BUT I DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED TO!!!

molgrips – Member
Now don't get me wrong, I am not anti-American, I am married to one after all

I don't think anyone who is concerned about the plight of millions of Americans without health care cover,
can be described as "anti-American".

Accusing others of being "anti-American" is a classic ploy used by the American Right when they find themselves unable to defend the indefensible.

It should be treated with the contempt which it deserves.

They even use that tacit against their own President and government …… FFS

In the interests of fairness, I should point out that I also have 2 other american colleagues who think the plan to widen access to health care is a brilliant idea. Interestingly, they're both Christians…

I don't think there is any question that the US is one of the most charitable countries in the world—and there are certainly people in every country, like Downs syndrome people, who will need help and should get it—- but the majority of people in this country DON'T want government getting their hands into every aspect of our lives. They couldn't even manage the Cash for Clunkers program effectively, what the hell will they do with this health-care initiative. There are too many people here with the "you owe us" mentality who are unwilling to work, choosing instead to stay on the welfare dole and have babies (because it brings more in from welfare)—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. During the last election, when Obama won, there was a woman on the street, declaring to a TV reporter that her worries were over and she didn't have to worry about making her house or car payment any longer. Am I supposed to work my butt off so I can pay it for her???? Don't have much sympathy for the lot.

As an aside, this is a pretty lively, off-bike topic–gets people to thinking.

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.

But healthcare is optional? Strange priorities! 😆

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 :

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 you vehemently criticising US government policy on health care on this thread, makes you 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