Can you explain the health care thing to a non-american

[Miss Chicken]

Is basic healthcare and medicine still offered in the US if you don't have insurance and don't have much money?

Yes. By law, emergency rooms, whether privately run or public, have to treat patients with immediately serious or life-threatening conditions. And there are public hospitals. They just don't exactly offer the highest level of care.

Also what is with the link to Nazis? I have heard this a couple of times and don't understand the link.

Ever hear of Godwin's Law?

Basic health care is more than going to the emergency room. Going to one's GP is also considered basic health care in Australia, as is being a public patient in a public hospital even if your condition is not serious or life-threatening.

 

[roliver]

On top of that you have to understand that most jobs in the US provide a healtcare plan for all employees.

Hmmm, not the U.S. I live in. Is there another one I never noticed before?

 

[Starbreaker]

Americans hate change, even for the better. End of story.

 

[The Fatman]

The "Health Care thing" is incomprehensible for most of us Americans, too, believe me...

What Pres. Obama seems to be focused on is the Middle Class of americans, where I personally fall. Do I have health care? yes. Every paycheck (bi-weekly) it costs me $230USD for medical, and an additional $22USD for the dental plan. So, I am paying $500 a month for my coverage.

Even with coverage that I am paying out the ass for, can I afford to get sick? ye gods no. We live primarily check to check, the co-pays would and do drown us.

I went to see my dr. after years of my wife's complaining about my snoring, and they sent me to a sleep therapist, who "suspected" sleep apnea, so then I had to go back to confirm. That was $60 just in visits. They told me my apnea was so bad it's a small miracle I've lived this long, so they prescribed me a CPAP breathing machine, which is only covered 50% by my plan, so I have to come up with almost $1000 to get something 2 different doctors have told me I will very likely die prematurely in my sleep if I don't get. I love America.

EDITED TO ADD: Just so it doesn't seem ALL bad, all pediatric visits and up to 72 hours in a hospital have 0 co-pay on my plan, so my daughter is very well taken care of. and I will say my pharmaceutical co-pays aren't bad either. As long as I get generic drugs, it's only $10 per 30 day supply.

 

[Paulcpick]

I think the main problem is that a lot of people believe that their taxes will go through the roof to fund government-run health care, and that the government will run it very, very poorly. I think everyone agrees that people should have adequate health care, that isn't the point.
I haven't been able to get the city to fill in the giant tire-bursting pothole at the end of my street for the last month, so if I have some sort of disease, do I really want to go into the same burocracy to see a doctor?

This, A Million Times THIS, Shout it from the Roof Tops THIS!

I Personally do not currently have any form of Health Care Insurance, I get sick, Im screwed, and yet I am still against Government run Health Care for this very reason.

 

[HobartFloyt]

First thing to remember about the health care debate is that it isn't about health care. In fact, if any actual health care is delivered it would only be by happenstance.

It is about power, more specifically Democrat Party power. In simple terms the Party seeks to establish an entitlement that is to ensure their re-election to the majority in perpetuity. Sort of a double combo of the electorate not biting the hand that feeds it and also being able to demagogue health care at every election like they do with Social Security (Those dastardly Republicans will cut off your health care/retirement unless you vote for MEEEE!!!!). This is why they keep pushing on an issue that has been soundly rejected by the populace. The Republican Party sees this and is why they are opposing it so strongly. It also doesn't help that what little is known of the actual bill sucks. I mean seriously, confiscatory taxation on a health insurance plan just because it's a good one? Oh, except for union members that is, they can keep theirs without the extra tax. Bleah.

 

[Kelso]

Yeah, Conservatives see it as another step towards socialism- a government power grab of xx% of the national economy and a scheme to take money from the hard working middle-class and use it to by the votes of the poor.

 

[Small White Car]

I think the main problem is that a lot of people believe that their taxes will go through the roof to fund government-run health care, and that the government will run it very, very poorly. I think everyone agrees that people should have adequate health care, that isn't the point.
I haven't been able to get the city to fill in the giant tire-bursting pothole at the end of my street for the last month, so if I have some sort of disease, do I really want to go into the same burocracy to see a doctor?

This, A Million Times THIS, Shout it from the Roof Tops THIS!

I Personally do not currently have any form of Health Care Insurance, I get sick, Im screwed, and yet I am still against Government run Health Care for this very reason.

But you're ALREADY PAYING for everyone's health care.

When a non-insured person gets sick they go to the ER and the health system pays for it by charging everyone else more. So you and I ARE paying costs that are "through the roof" already for exactly this reason.

And guess what? Those un-insured people aren't going to a GP right now so when they do go to the ER it costs even MORE than it should because they've been ignoring their heath.

This is why this argument is baffling to me. You don't want to spend a little bit of money to keep them healthy now...you'd rather spend a ton of money later when they get really, really sick. I can't understand that mentality. It's like you're begging to have more money taken away from you.

EDIT: And actually, I'm being nice in assuming that you'd manage to come up with the medical fees when you do get hurt. That would put you and me in the same boat.

But based on your comment of "I'd be screwed" I'm assuming that you're also planning on being one of those people who will pass the costs of your ER visit on to me. So...thanks. You oppose getting taxed a fair share so that I can pick up the entire bill for you. This makes your opposition to the plan very self-serving, don't you think?

That's why I'm in favor of government health care. It would force people like you to pay something which would bring more money into the system and lower the costs for people like me who are currently paying more than our fair share. Since Republicans tend to be the "pay your fair way" kind of people I can not understand why I'm on the opposite side of the issue from them. I want to force more people to pay their fair share for a service they are currently mooching off the rich...what could be more Republican than that? And yet...somehow...they disagree with me.

I don't really understand the whole thing either, OP.

 

[Mallory]

On top of that you have to understand that most jobs in the US provide a healtcare plan for all employees.

Hmmm, not the U.S. I live in. Is there another one I never noticed before?

Maybe. I've worked for 38 years and have always had health insurance through my employer, even as a 15 year old part time stock boy in a grocery store in the 1970s.

 

[Paulcpick]

Hey, Im all for Health Care for all US Citizens, I just dont think that the United States Government is capable of doing it, and doing it efficiently.

 

[Small White Car]

Hey, Im all for Health Care for all US Citizens, I just dont think that the United States Government is capable of doing it, and doing it efficiently.

And you know what? That'd be a good thing. Force everyone into it and then when it sucks those people will jump ship and run to the private firms that are out there.

With more patients those companies will be able to operate more efficiently than they currently do.

The government-run system will be a last-chance stop-gap for people who just can't find a home anywhere else.

I want to see:
- Mandatory Health Care
- A government system for those who really, really need it.

I do NOT want to see:
- A ton of people using the government system

I think, done right, this whole thing will be GOOD for the private insurance companies. I'd wish they'd spend more time steering it towards that outcome rather than blocking stuff outright because change is scary.

I think they're ignoring some great opportunities because they're scared. This is EXACTLY like when the movie studios sued the VCR makers when it first came out. Hollywood should have loved the VCR...it's made them a ton of money selling tapes and now DVDs...but when it first arrived they couldn't see that. They were forced into a good situation even though they fought it all the way. I'm hoping that will happen for the health companies here, too.

 

[RoJoHen]

On top of that you have to understand that most jobs in the US provide a healtcare plan for all employees.

Hmmm, not the U.S. I live in. Is there another one I never noticed before?

Maybe. I've worked for 38 years and have always had health insurance through my employer, even as a 15 year old part time stock boy in a grocery store in the 1970s.

Not bad. I've never had a job that provided healthcare.


The only reason I'm insured right now is because Illinois changed their laws. So many college grads were unable to afford insurance that now anybody can go back onto their parents' insurance until they turn 26.

 

[Spot's Meow]

This country (America) has a long history of distrusting the federal government and not wanting to grant it too much power. I studied a lot of colonial history in college and it scares me to see how similar some of today's debates are to things that were being discussed back then. Of course things have fluctuated since then and we've had some times of being more sympathetic to government intervention, but it seems to me to all come back to these main points (these are not necessarily my feelings): The very basis of our nation was a fight for independence from a larger power that we felt was not looking out for our interests. The crown was taking from us what was not rightfully theirs, without giving us a voice into how or when or why this was done. So by nature we were skeptical of a large government entity that was not tied in to our local interests. This is why (back in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries) so many people advocated state's rights and powers over federal ones. This is one of the main reasons for the Civil War; the fight between states and the federal government to say who had the most power. It was felt that a faraway federal government could not possibly understand the needs of so many vastly different regions of the country. Now combine this mindset with growing capitalism and you get many people who fear that what they have worked so hard for may be taken away by this far off government entity that does not understand them, and that competitive private businesses can achieve great things. That brings us to today and to health care, where many feel that the federal government, in trying to create a public health care system, is once again over-reaching to try and establish a centralized power structure, one that can't possibly be as fair or competitive as what private businesses can create. It is a combination of a sense that federal power is something to be looked at very skeptically and that what you have worked hard for may be taken away without your consent.

Now that is a very simplified version of things, but I hope that some history will give insight into what people might feel today.

I personally have no problem with a government health care system.

I am the type of person who is uninsured right now...in my mid-20s so too old to be on my parent's insurance anymore but it is very difficult to find a job with benefits. I am still working unbenefitted hourly wages and all of my friends are as well. I am not so worried about health care once I can get such a job, but getting there without any injuries or need of medication is the hard part.

 

[browney]

Taxes/Heath costs going through the roof seems like the most logical argument against it. I can definately understand why people would fear that!

Although I have seen it presented that the US has more expensive health care than the countries that do have 'universal heath care'.

That said, it is often presented that the US has the most expensive healthcare in the world. Given that their are many countries with a 'universal heath care' system, it seems ilogical to reason that the cost of health would significantly rise.

As far as tax goes, I do see the fear but when it comes down to it, the only difference I see between having money taken out of your pay for a private insurance company compared to the government is that an insurance company is also trying to make profit themselves, so all things being equal shouldn't it be cheaper to have the government do it?

If people are opposed to this, is there another option (ie. presented in the media) to provide better health care for people who can't afford insurance?

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

As far as tax goes, I do see the fear but when it comes down to it, the only difference I see between having money taken out of your pay for a private insurance company compared to the government is that an insurance company is also trying to make profit themselves, so all things being equal shouldn't it be cheaper to have the government do it?

You'd think so, but government bureaucracies in any country tend to be large, overstaffed, inefficient and expensive. There is something to be said for the market model, which should, in theory, drive down cost through competition. However, my observation in the UK is that private health care companies seem to operate as a cartel.

 

[Amaris]

Hmmm, not the U.S. I live in. Is there another one I never noticed before?

Maybe. I've worked for 38 years and have always had health insurance through my employer, even as a 15 year old part time stock boy in a grocery store in the 1970s.

Not bad. I've never had a job that provided healthcare.


The only reason I'm insured right now is because Illinois changed their laws. So many college grads were unable to afford insurance that now anybody can go back onto their parents' insurance until they turn 26.

Ditto. I only had health benefits when I worked at Dell. Every other job (all full time) offered nothing in the way of benefits. I live in Ohio.

 

[matthunter]

Employer-provided healthcare packages are great until you find yourself out of a job.

$500 a month for health insurance? That's about £250. I pay less than that (£223) in National Insurance (UK "safety net" payment anyone earning over a certain amount pays, based on salary rate) per month, and it also goes towards unemployment benefits should I ever require them...

Granted, I also pay income taxes on top of that (~£450 per month or $900, about 15% of my gross earnings), but I suspect Americans do as well.

 

[Small White Car]

$500 a month for health insurance? That's about £250.

I know many self-employed people who pay far, far more than that, too.

 

[iguana_tonante]

First thing to remember about the health care debate is that it isn't about health care. In fact, if any actual health care is delivered it would only be by happenstance.

It is about power, more specifically Democrat Party power. In simple terms the Party seeks to establish an entitlement that is to ensure their re-election to the majority in perpetuity. Sort of a double combo of the electorate not biting the hand that feeds it and also being able to demagogue health care at every election like they do with Social Security (Those dastardly Republicans will cut off your health care/retirement unless you vote for MEEEE!!!!). This is why they keep pushing on an issue that has been soundly rejected by the populace. The Republican Party sees this and is why they are opposing it so strongly. It also doesn't help that what little is known of the actual bill sucks. I mean seriously, confiscatory taxation on a health insurance plan just because it's a good one? Oh, except for union members that is, they can keep theirs without the extra tax. Bleah.

Do you need more buzzwords? Just throw in a "socialist" and you'll have a full house.

 

[TheBrew]

Spreading fear and buzzwords is all they have left. Is the current plan being proposed perfect? No.

But it is the height of idiocy to look at other countries who do have UHC, who pay less for UHC overall than we do for our system, who have longer average lifespans than Americans, who have doctors who are happy with their system (any system that lets Holdy dress up can't be that bad) and with all of those facts think that it would be worse for America. This isn't a theory, this isn't some legislative wishy-washy hopefulness, UHC is a proven system that will lower health care costs while improving coverage for all Americans.

This will not prevent people from getting top-shelf care if they want to pay more for it, it just provides a baseline of care for all. As a society, we will be healthier and more productive which will improve our economy. Healthier and more productive people will reduce the amount of people on welfare.

What is the conservative answer? Tort reform? While that is an important issue that should be addressed (and is), tort reform will overall do very little to address the real problems in our healthcare system.

Conservatives can only play upon the natural fear that people have. They don't want to fix the system, they just want to win the next election. The last administration proved that was their goal. Better to win the next election and hurt the country in the long term than to actually act responsible and make a real difference in improving the lives of their constituents.