Can you explain the health care thing to a non-american
- Thread starter browney
- Start date
But only one of them relates to urgent cases.
All else asdie, those figures are only true insofar as the Americans concerned were insured. A average person with Williams history of heart problems would be hard pressed to even get insurance in the US. Thankfully he's rich.
And far more qualified Canadian heart surgeons have testified that the procedure is readily available in Canada, but is not generally recommended.
All else asdie, those figures are only true insofar as the Americans concerned were insured. A average person with Williams history of heart problems would be hard pressed to even get insurance in the US. Thankfully he's rich.
And far more qualified Canadian heart surgeons have testified that the procedure is readily available in Canada, but is not generally recommended.
Still waiting on you to address the issue of uninsured Americans. You keep sidestepping that issue.
Yes, if all of a sudden an extra 30-40 million Americans were insured (whether through public or private means) what would that do to the waiting times in America?
Waiting times are often due to a lack of doctors rather than a lack of financing.
How the hell did race get into this?
Never mind. It's a corollary of Godwin's Law. No matter what the topic, sooner or later someone will drag race into the discussion, even if race has nothing to do with it.
It didn't occur to me before but what happends to people with chronic conditions? Can a private company push your premiums up or even refuse to insure you (like they would for someone who crashes there car a lot) or is their a law that forces insurace companies to insure people no matter what their history is?
Thanks for providing interesting answers, people have been so much more sensible than the people we see on the news. We get Fox news on paytv in Australia and they have poeple on that about government heathcare being related to socialism, which seems like a crazy argument. You could use that argument against anything that tax pays for (like schools or transport). Lots of countries have government heath care but are not socialist (Australia is far from socialist)!
Thanks for providing interesting answers, people have been so much more sensible than the people we see on the news. We get Fox news on paytv in Australia and they have poeple on that about government heathcare being related to socialism, which seems like a crazy argument. You could use that argument against anything that tax pays for (like schools or transport). Lots of countries have government heath care but are not socialist (Australia is far from socialist)!
They (and often do) refuse to insure you.
Basically the insurance companies are scams and will help only those who wont hurt their bottom line. They pay off republicans and some democrats to keep the cash flowing.
If you cant afford health insurance and have a life threatening issue then you have two options:
1. Move to a country with free govt healthcare and hope they help you.
2. Die.
If you cant afford health insurance and have a life threatening issue then you have two options:
1. Move to a country with free govt healthcare and hope they help you.
2. Die.
You forget that the whole concept of insurance is insurance. Suppose you slam your car into a tree and don't already carry insurance. Should insurance companies be forced to pay for your car anyway? If so, why would anyone pay for insurance until after they see massive expenses headed their way?
Requiring insurance companies to pay out for pre-existing conditions is a crazy idea. Everyone could shop around for the cheapest, most minimal coverage to meet legal requirements and then upgrade as soon as something bad happens. That means the plans offering better coverage will go bankrupt while the fly-by-night operations prosper.
Requiring insurance companies to pay out for pre-existing conditions is a crazy idea. Everyone could shop around for the cheapest, most minimal coverage to meet legal requirements and then upgrade as soon as something bad happens. That means the plans offering better coverage will go bankrupt while the fly-by-night operations prosper.
But health insurance and car insurance are completely different.
Health conditions can exist from birth and you often have no control over them. Under a government heath care program you will be covered. So, for example, you have a long term illness from the age of 5 (before you could reasonably pay for your own insurance) you would be stuffed.
Car crashes that are your fault can only occur after you turn 16 and are 80% under your control. Even if you make some mistakes early in your driving 'career' you can erase this by having 5 or so years without a crash. You are not likely to spontanously recover from a chronic illness.
Health conditions can exist from birth and you often have no control over them. Under a government heath care program you will be covered. So, for example, you have a long term illness from the age of 5 (before you could reasonably pay for your own insurance) you would be stuffed.
Car crashes that are your fault can only occur after you turn 16 and are 80% under your control. Even if you make some mistakes early in your driving 'career' you can erase this by having 5 or so years without a crash. You are not likely to spontanously recover from a chronic illness.
Under the Australian I have had to wait for some things but not for anything urgent.
Despite the fact that I am under the poverty line under the Australian health system I can afford my daily medication. I know that there are several Americans on this board who cannot. For a prescription I pay the sum of $5.60 so long as the medication is on the PBS. If I have more than 52 prescription a year I get them for free. People who are not on government benefits pay an maximum of $28 per prescription for the first 52 and $5.60 after that.
I do not have to worry about getting huge bills if I get sick. I do not have to argue with health insurance companies about what treatment I receive. I have never had to worry about what will happen to my health care if I lose my job because I know I will always have basic coverage - i.e. free care if I am a public patiient in a public hospital and at least 80% of my bill covered if I go to a GP.
To have basic coverage Australians pay 1.5% of their taxable income.
Despite the fact that I am under the poverty line under the Australian health system I can afford my daily medication. I know that there are several Americans on this board who cannot. For a prescription I pay the sum of $5.60 so long as the medication is on the PBS. If I have more than 52 prescription a year I get them for free. People who are not on government benefits pay an maximum of $28 per prescription for the first 52 and $5.60 after that.
I do not have to worry about getting huge bills if I get sick. I do not have to argue with health insurance companies about what treatment I receive. I have never had to worry about what will happen to my health care if I lose my job because I know I will always have basic coverage - i.e. free care if I am a public patiient in a public hospital and at least 80% of my bill covered if I go to a GP.
To have basic coverage Australians pay 1.5% of their taxable income.
And there's where people fall off the back of the turnip truck. Health insurance and car insurance are the same. They are sold by the same people, often provided by the same companies. What is being insured is different, but the principle of the transaction is identical. The purchaser, not knowing the future, buys insurance against possible future expenses they might incur.
If the condition is pre-existing, an already wrecked car or a failed liver, then no insurance is possible because the expense to be covered isn't a potential future liability that can be assigned odds, it already exists 100%. So if the cost is x then the cost is x, not 15% of x with a 10% probability of occuring in a given year.
Most children are insured by their parents. Further, not all lives are going to cost equal amounts, be equally successful, or result in equal happiness. Some people will have to set aside a much larger share of their income to cover chronic health conditions. Whether they use insurance (which will cost them more) or pay out of pocket doesn't change this.
Money is at issue, as we can easily spend a neary infinite amount on every life, which would bankrupt the nation in about a week and require 90% of us to be doctors so that the surgical teams are large enough.
The issue is whether the 90% who pay into the current system should have to pay more for less service, to cover what in some cases are perfectly healthy post-college kids who don't use health care (and almost all of them get through the period just fine), and in most other cases are people who won't be insured under the government run system, either.
Which means that you need a scheme that covers all Americans for basic health coverage.
In Australia you can pay the 1.5% Medicare fee for basic coverage (or no feee at all if your income is too low). If you don't want to wait about waiting times than you take out addition health insurance.
I looked up what it would cost me for health insurance. I am a single 52 year old woman. If I was earning $50,000 taxable income a year, I would pay a $750 Medicare levy per year. if I wanted private hospital coverage without childbirth/pregnancy or reproductive technology it would cost me about $150 a month. I would have to pay the first $500 of my total for hospital stays, Among other things I would be entitled to about $600 a year in dental care, $1000 worth of physiotherapy, $250 optical and $1000 home nursing for that price.
In Australia you can pay the 1.5% Medicare fee for basic coverage (or no feee at all if your income is too low). If you don't want to wait about waiting times than you take out addition health insurance.
I looked up what it would cost me for health insurance. I am a single 52 year old woman. If I was earning $50,000 taxable income a year, I would pay a $750 Medicare levy per year. if I wanted private hospital coverage without childbirth/pregnancy or reproductive technology it would cost me about $150 a month. I would have to pay the first $500 of my total for hospital stays, Among other things I would be entitled to about $600 a year in dental care, $1000 worth of physiotherapy, $250 optical and $1000 home nursing for that price.
^ THAT is why Australians have such a low life expectancy and high rates of infant mortality. No, wait...
gturner said:
Purely anecdotal: I have met and spoken with four people (including a cousin) who went to their doctor, complaining of chest pain. I'm not sure how long it took for them to have an angiogram--I know it ranged from "immediately" to two weeks--but the next thing they knew, their surgery (bypass, valve, etc) was over.
I waited a month for my CTAngiogram, as I wasn't considered "serious" and I wouldn't have to pay (as this method wasn't covered by insurance). I was not told to go straight to the hospital, so I'm assuming that, when I see the cardiologist next month, things will be relatively ok.
Australians are known for their very well insulated homes, not their health care.
Regarding insurance, too many people don't grasp what it is. It's a business transaction between a person who wants to buy it and somebody who will sell it. The customer is willing to part with more money in the long term to reduce his exposure to financial risk due to the uncertainties of the future, while the other party is gathering enough customers so that the income covers the risks - setting prices based on astute mathematical analysis of the odds, just as in gambling.
You can't carry a winning poker hand into a casino. You can't expect an insurance company to cover your car wreck when you sign up after the accident.
What many here are describing is not insurance. It's a system of guaranteed coverage, like welfare, foodstamps, or Social Security - or Medicade or Medicare. Such systems become part of the government budget, where amounts are decided not on the basis of need, but on political and budgetary considerations made by people who didn't major in medicine, have probably never worked in the health fields, much less run a hospital or clinic, have never run an insurance company, and just want to get elected by making promises whose implications they don't even understand.
Regarding insurance, too many people don't grasp what it is. It's a business transaction between a person who wants to buy it and somebody who will sell it. The customer is willing to part with more money in the long term to reduce his exposure to financial risk due to the uncertainties of the future, while the other party is gathering enough customers so that the income covers the risks - setting prices based on astute mathematical analysis of the odds, just as in gambling.
You can't carry a winning poker hand into a casino. You can't expect an insurance company to cover your car wreck when you sign up after the accident.
What many here are describing is not insurance. It's a system of guaranteed coverage, like welfare, foodstamps, or Social Security - or Medicade or Medicare. Such systems become part of the government budget, where amounts are decided not on the basis of need, but on political and budgetary considerations made by people who didn't major in medicine, have probably never worked in the health fields, much less run a hospital or clinic, have never run an insurance company, and just want to get elected by making promises whose implications they don't even understand.
That right.
All the people in here who are against UHC for the USA and who say that the USA hs the best health systems in the world won't explain why, with the best system in the world, the USA's infant mortality is higher and its life expectancy lower than nearly every other Western country.
In all likelihood it is a result of so many people not having access to that health system.
If so many Canadians, Australians, British, French citizens die while waiting for treatment you would expect for those coutnries to have a higher death rate than the USA but they don't.
No, it isn't like welfare or Social Security because 100% of Australians are covered and welfare is only used by people in need.UHC is more like everyone being able to access the fire department or police force.
I am not only covered in Australia. There are several countries I can go whose UHC I can access for any urgent treatment I need. These countries are Finland, the Republic of Ireland, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Belgium, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom.Citizens of those countries can likewise access our system when they come to Australia.
Actually, the US high infant mortality rate has been well studied. In almost all other countries what we count as infant mortality wouldn't be listed because they didn't consider the baby viable. Countries vary so much in their reporting standards that comparisons between countries are viewed with great allowance for error bars in the calculations.
Also, the life expectancy of whites in the US is within a few months of European nations, and we smoke like chimneys. Black Americans have slightly less life expectancy, probably due hypertension. US Hispanics, oddly enough, have a lower infant mortality rate and the same or better life expectancy as whites.
The life of Aboriginal Australians, sadly, remains nasty, brutish, and short (17 years less than white Australians).
ETA: Oh, and deaths don't affect death rates in the long term. They are purely determined by the birth rates.
Also, the life expectancy of whites in the US is within a few months of European nations, and we smoke like chimneys. Black Americans have slightly less life expectancy, probably due hypertension. US Hispanics, oddly enough, have a lower infant mortality rate and the same or better life expectancy as whites.
The life of Aboriginal Australians, sadly, remains nasty, brutish, and short (17 years less than white Australians).
ETA: Oh, and deaths don't affect death rates in the long term. They are purely determined by the birth rates.
Similar threads
