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

[siskokid888]

Its really simple - we Americans are selfish bastards who won't raise a peep about untold billions spent on weapons and "defense", but scream like spoiled children about helping fellow countrymen that need it. I have never been so ashamed to be identified as American as I have over the past year.

 

[SPOCKED]

My question is why does their seem to be so much opposition to a public heath care system in the United States?

Because the Obama bill is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence

 

[scotpens]

Its really simple - we Americans are selfish bastards who won't raise a peep about untold billions spent on weapons and “defense”, but scream like spoiled children about helping fellow countrymen that need it.

There's a world of difference between helping one's fellow man through voluntary contributions and private charities on the one hand, and confiscatory taxes and massive state welfare bureaucracies on the other.

 

[siskokid888]

Its really simple - we Americans are selfish bastards who won't raise a peep about untold billions spent on weapons and “defense”, but scream like spoiled children about helping fellow countrymen that need it.

There's a world of difference between helping one's fellow man through voluntary contributions and private charities on the one hand, and confiscatory taxes and massive state welfare bureaucracies on the other.

Helping people is helping people no matter how it is done. And to have "confiscatory taxes and massive state welfare bureaucracies" (gag) buy billions of dollars of weapons and pay defense contractors and the military machine billions more for years and years and not even raise a voice, is disgusting hipocracy of the highest order. Where is all the anger about that? Yea, take my tax money and use it to kill people, I won't say anything about that. But take my tax money to try and help someone (especially someone of color, heaven forbid) and I will bring down your "socialist"scheme! Please.

 

[SeerSGB]

Short and sweet: We're fucking idiots.

Only explanation needed.

 

[Colonel Green]

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.

Quoted for motherfucking truth.

This is one of the many reasons, as I have pointed out many times, that the US government and therefore the US taxpayer is already paying more for healthcare than many countries with Universal healthcare even before you factor in the cost of private insurance.

The U.S. spends much more on health care than Canada, both on a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP.[5] In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%.[5] In 2006, 70% of health care spending in Canada was financed by government, versus 46% in the United States. Total government spending per capita in the U.S. on health care was 23% higher than Canadian government spending, and U.S. government expenditure on health care was just under 83% of total Canadian spending (public and private).[6]

Once again: Not only does the average American pay more for healthcare, the US government pays more without achieving the same level of coverage.

 

[gturner]

But Canadian politicians get their important health care treatments in Florida and New York. Why is that?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

But Canadian politicians get their important health care treatments in Florida and New York. Why is that?

I'd like to see some statistics and prominent examples to back up the assertion that that is a frequent occurrence amongst Canadian politicians, but just to humor the argument...

No one is saying that health care professionals, equipment, facilities, and services in the US are subpar. They're not. We have some of the finest medical personnel and hospitals in the world and it makes perfect sense for people who can afford it to choose the best specialists available anywhere in the world.

The problem is a lack of access to health care for people who can't afford it. The argument that affluent people will scour the globe to find the best specialist for their particular issue in wholly irrelevant to the problem of tens of millions of non-affluent people not having access to even basic health care services.

 

[gturner]

How about Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams, who just went to Mount Sanai Medical Center in Miami, saying "This is my heart, it's my health, it's my choice."?

 

[TheBrew]

My question is why does their seem to be so much opposition to a public heath care system in the United States?

Because the Obama bill is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence

What a fascinating and thorough analysis of the issue.

 

[Pingfah]

How about Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams, who just went to Mount Sanai Medical Center in Miami, saying "This is my heart, it's my health, it's my choice."?

He wanted proof that it is a frequent occurrence, not that it happens. He already acknowledged that it happens.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

How about Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams, who just went to Mount Sanai Medical Center in Miami, saying "This is my heart, it's my health, it's my choice."?

And? That's one, and all it says that he can afford the option of looking around the world for the very best or most innovative specialist for his particular heart problem. It says nothing about Canadian health care as a whole or about the issue of many poor individuals not having access to health care here.

Where's the mass exodus from using Canadian health care that indicates that it's subpar?

 

[Colonel Green]

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.

How about Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams, who just went to Mount Sanai Medical Center in Miami, saying "This is my heart, it's my health, it's my choice."?

Yep, you're right. The US has the best healthcare in the world.... for rich people. On average? Not so much.

If you bothered to do a little research, you'd find that he could have had the exact same surgery at a number of Canadian hospitals.

Thing is, he wanted to have it on HIS schedule, not the hospitals. That is an option for extremely wealthy people in the US, but not here. Nor, for that matter, is it an option for 95% of Americans. They get their surgery when their HMO tells them to, if at all.

So you're right, the richest 5% of Americans are better off with your current system.

 

[gturner]

In British Columbia the average time on a waiting list for coronary bypass surgery was 3.3 months. link

For urgent coronary angiography only 5.2% of US patients waited more than 72 hours, whereas 64.5% of Canadians, 100% of Swedes, and 94.1% of British had to wait more than that.

For urgent coronary bypass surgery only 2.7% of US patients waited more than 72 hours. 79.7% waited less than 24 hours. In Canada 80% waited more than 24 hours and 13.3% waited more than 72 hours. In the UK 33% waited more than 72 hours.

That's from the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.



PDF (might not work due to the giant URL.)

So only about 30% of Canadians get the rapid care that 95% of Americans get.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

So only about 30% of Canadians get the rapid care that 95% of Americans get.

You mean 95% of Americans who already have health care insurance, right? Because significantly less than 95% of the American people have health insurance (versus 100% that do in Canada), which is the problem this thread is addressing and which you are repeatedly ignoring to focus on tangents in an attempt to paint Canadian health care as substandard when it's not.

 

[Colonel Green]

Also, he is conflating the stats for all coronary bypass surgeries with those for urgent coronary bypass surgeries. If you live in BC and need an immediate coronary bypass, you'll get it.

Danny Williams did not need an immediate coronary bypass, but he wanted one because it would better fit his schedule, so he bought it.

But hey, who looks to gturner for intellectual honesty?

 

[Marten]

From Swedish media, I get the impression that the real problem is the insanely high costs compared to other countries. The tort lawyers get blamed the most, I believe.

 

[gturner]

Also, he is conflating the stats for all coronary bypass surgeries with those for urgent coronary bypass surgeries. If you live in BC and need an immediate coronary bypass, you'll get it.

Danny Williams did not need an immediate coronary bypass, but he wanted one because it would better fit his schedule, so he bought it.

But hey, who looks to gturner for intellectual honesty?

Nope. They study looked at four surgeries, one of them urgent coronary bypass surgery. Canadians had to wait. Americans did not.

Also, Danny Williams didn't have a coronary bypass. He had a heart valve problem.

 

[SPOCKED]

My question is why does their seem to be so much opposition to a public heath care system in the United States?

Because the Obama bill is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence

What a fascinating and thorough analysis of the issue.

Thank you for your equally concise critique

 

[Colonel Green]

One of four, eh? That kind of invalidates the stats as useful for direct comparison, doesn't it?

As to Williams, it still wasn't urgent. He could have waited without risk, he just didn't want to.