Please explain American healthcare logic to me (a Brit).

[8236]

You've maybe/probably heard all this b4, but I just don't understand the loud hostility of many Americans to the so-called 'socialist' healthcare systems of Canada and the UK.

Sensationalist statements like 'Communist', 'Death panels' and (lol) 'have you seen the state of Brits' teeth' (<-might come back to that one some other time), strike me as bizarre. I probably only get to see the wackier stuff that people come out with in the US, but I've been doing a bit of reading around:

1: If the Canadian system sucks, why do so many Americans buy their medication from Canada.
2: Overall life expectancy in the US is lower than in Canada, the UK, Puerto-Rico and - shockingly - Jordan (Neigbour of Irak!). The US comes in at #35, just above Albania, an impoverished ex-commie state next to Greece (which also does better than the US).
3: America spends twice as much as the British do on health (as % of GDP), but yet still 15% of Americans have no insurance. That together with the life expectancy makes me think you're being ripped off.
4: The UK National Health Service is paid for out of general taxation, but nobody is forced to use it. There are plenty of private insurance schemes here, and if you can afford them then fine, but then it's also good that those wealthy people pay some tax for the benefit of the poor who can't. In fact, many people over here also get private health insurance as part of the jobs - just like in the US, and the NHS acts as a safety net for the poor and those who lose their jobs and insurance - not unlikely in these economic times.

I've seen TV reports showing thousands of (mainly poor black) people queueing in and around a football stadium for hours and hours, just to get some basic help on an assembly line kind of system with absolutely no privacy at all - it looked more like something I expect to see in Africa, not the worlds richest nation. Then there was the woman who had to sell her house and was living in a tent with her husband in order to pay for the cancer drugs she needed. Don't know about you but I find that quite shocking. Maybe I'm just being bamboozled by the media, but I thank my lucky stars I live in a country where everybody's life is regarded as of (reasonably) equal value. I thought the US constitution said something about equality somewhere... must have been meant selectively... oooh, heck, it was! It didn't apply to slaves (then) and obviously the poor (then, now and in the future too probably).

So, I really don't understand many Americans hostility to health care for all. Maybe I just don't understand the issues. If it is all about money, why not cut some of the defence budget - afterall the US spends as much on defence as the rest of the world combined (another figure that shocks me). Nobody in the US ever seems to question the amount spent on the military so I guess the issue can't be big government either. I'm confused. Someone please explain. Thanx

PS. I believe the US media dug up some Brit politician to slag off the UK's NHS. First of all he is member of the European parliament (MEP), not the UK's. No UK MP would dare say what he did. Second it's easy for a guy on over $100000 a year (basic) to come out with what he said. Third he was severely reprimanded by his party's leader in the UK (lol, silly Tory bastard ).

 

[xsited1]

Some Americans (like myself) have a problem with the government getting too big and powerful. This is a complicated issue, but rest assured that our 'representatives' WILL pass some kind of universal health coverage for everyone soon, possibly this year. It's inevitable. And then in a few years the US will go broke and we'll become a 3rd world nation. I'll need a place to stay then. Do you have any extra room in your flat?

 

[Political Junky]

You've maybe/probably heard all this b4, but I just don't understand the loud hostility of many Americans to the so-called 'socialist' healthcare systems of Canada and the UK.

Sensationalist statements like 'Communist', 'Death panels' and (lol) 'have you seen the state of Brits' teeth' (<-might come back to that one some other time), strike me as bizarre. I probably only get to see the wackier stuff that people come out with in the US, but I've been doing a bit of reading around:

1: If the Canadian system sucks, why do so many Americans buy their medication from Canada.
2: Overall life expectancy in the US is lower than in Canada, the UK, Puerto-Rico and - shockingly - Jordan (Neigbour of Irak!). The US comes in at #35, just above Albania, an impoverished ex-commie state next to Greece (which also does better than the US).
3: America spends twice as much as the British do on health (as % of GDP), but yet still 15% of Americans have no insurance. That together with the life expectancy makes me think you're being ripped off.
4: The UK National Health Service is paid for out of general taxation, but nobody is forced to use it. There are plenty of private insurance schemes here, and if you can afford them then fine, but then it's also good that those wealthy people pay some tax for the benefit of the poor who can't. In fact, many people over here also get private health insurance as part of the jobs - just like in the US, and the NHS acts as a safety net for the poor and those who lose their jobs and insurance - not unlikely in these economic times.

I've seen TV reports showing thousands of (mainly poor black) people queueing in and around a football stadium for hours and hours, just to get some basic help on an assembly line kind of system with absolutely no privacy at all - it looked more like something I expect to see in Africa, not the worlds richest nation. Then there was the woman who had to sell her house and was living in a tent with her husband in order to pay for the cancer drugs she needed. Don't know about you but I find that quite shocking. Maybe I'm just being bamboozled by the media, but I thank my lucky stars I live in a country where everybody's life is regarded as of (reasonably) equal value. I thought the US constitution said something about equality somewhere... must have been meant selectively... oooh, heck, it was! It didn't apply to slaves (then) and obviously the poor (then, now and in the future too probably).

So, I really don't understand many Americans hostility to health care for all. Maybe I just don't understand the issues. If it is all about money, why not cut some of the defence budget - afterall the US spends as much on defence as the rest of the world combined (another figure that shocks me). Nobody in the US ever seems to question the amount spent on the military so I guess the issue can't be big government either. I'm confused. Someone please explain. Thanx

PS. I believe the US media dug up some Brit politician to slag off the UK's NHS. First of all he is member of the European parliament (MEP), not the UK's. No UK MP would dare say what he did. Second it's easy for a guy on over $100000 a year (basic) to come out with what he said. Third he was severely reprimanded by his party's leader in the UK (lol, silly Tory bastard ).

All valid questions, thanks. You're not apt to find a straight answer from those opposed to healthcare for all, however.

 

[veritas]

All valid questions, thanks. You're not apt to find a straight answer from those opposed to healthcare for all, however.

Very good OP 8326.

But eventually the anti-healthcare crowd will dissolve into calling you a homosexual. It'll take 5 minutes or so until they've exhausted the fascist/socialist themes......but it WILL happen.

 

[SWGAFire]

I'll voice a concern or two. However invalid some might find them, they are food for thought for a lot of people.

First, I watched one of Obama's 'town halls' where he was discussing health care. In one sentence he said that the government would do so much better at providing HC for citizens. Two minutes later he was stating one of the reason for a new government system was because Medicare/caid was going to be bankrupt in 7-10 years. What?!

Problem: 2 gov't HC systems are going bankrupt
Solution: Create another

I mean, really, what has the government every really undertaken and it run smoothly, effectively, efficiently and frugally? Remember when it used to be joked that the Pentagon spent $50 for a hammer and $100 for a toilet seat? If you do, then you remember it wasn't far from the truth! The same gov't that responded to Katrina, then outsourced to private corps for everything else. Look at the RAMPANT corruption and price gouging and fraud going on there!

Now, I'm about as far south from Canada as you can get. So people crossing over for meds, I know little about. Maybe it's some sort of gov't regulation on pharmaceuticals or the companies. Worth looking into.

I'm not at all against HC reform! I welcome it! And again, I'm not totally informed in all the in's and out's of what's broken with our current system and why. I just know that paying $4-5 per pill of Tylenol and $2-3 per 2x4 pad is freaking unreal!

The health crisis in America maybe a pretty unique one. If I'm not mistaken, every major cause of death in the US is caused by a 'life style disease'. Heart disease, diabetes, some cancers, obesity...Poor diet, lack of exercise and preventative care are naming just a few.

Anyhow, I need a smoke....

 

[Political Junky]

The government has done a pretty good job with the military, except, of course, for the graft.

 

[SWGAFire]

I will agree that we have a badass military!

Well, I've had two good friends in the military (aside from a couple of casual aquiantances). One, wife and two kids. He went AWOL twice to come back to GA so he could work at his old job to make enough money to support them. He wasn't making enough on base. He got discharged, of course. Second, wife and three kids. He was living in gov't housing on base and still had to get food stamps. I don't know how the first spent his money, may have been too free with the check book. Like I said he was away. But I lived near by the second and I know how their money was spent. It was sad situation. However, I know plenty make it on military pay. Always some good and bad.

 

[8236]

Some Americans (like myself) have a problem with the government getting too big and powerful. This is a complicated issue, but rest assured that our 'representatives' WILL pass some kind of universal health coverage for everyone soon, possibly this year. It's inevitable. And then in a few years the US will go broke and we'll become a 3rd world nation. I'll need a place to stay then. Do you have any extra room in your flat?

I live in a castle, as all Englishmen do, so you're welcome anytime
As I understand it the US is already pretty broke (the $10trillion debt I mentioned somewhere) - although, it's not that bad, only 100% of GDP).
I think the problem is Americans' innate dislike of the concept of tax. I understand why many Americans think like that. You live in a vast country where, particularly in the sparsely populated areas there is a tradition of self reliance, and an understandable suspicion of outside inteference. Unfortunately when you live in areas of high population density like some of your coastal states and most European countries it is simply not possible to have a functioning society without some kind of communal care system, be it social security or healthcare, or whatever because the disparaties in wealth and opportunities ultimately lead to rampant crime, anger and collapse of society.

This probably sounds like its coming straight out of 'Das Kapital', but it can't be argued that large inequities, and large numbers of poor people living on top of each other with a few very rich people has been the cause of most of the revolutions and subsequent misery that followed in the 20th century.

I don't see higher taxation as necessarily bad. It fosters social cohesion (yes you do get scroungers - but then there are plenty of them in the stock markets, media, sports etc., doing relatively little for the vast sums they make). It also allows you to shout even louder at public servents: 'I pay your wages'. As for the argument that the state always screws things up, heck, we have plenty of previously state owned companies in the UK who have made things far worse and expensive than was previously the case - public transport and utilities etc.

Another thing that sickens me is the 'privatise the profits', 'nationalise the debts' modus operandi prevalent over here, and I guess in the US aswell, at the moment.

I think I'm woffling now. Anyway, you are welcome to come and stay anytime. Provided you can stand to come and live in a 3rd world country (which by implication is what you were saying). Although, I don't actually think the UK is quite in the 3rd world category yet, even after having had healthcare for all since 1948. Heck, we could afford a national health care system in 1948(!), when Britain was bankrupt, still on rations, with millions of bombed out homes etc. Surely you can't be serious when you think America will go broke under the staggering weight of paying for health care for the remaining 15% without the insurance!

 

[SWGAFire]

Some Americans (like myself) have a problem with the government getting too big and powerful. This is a complicated issue, but rest assured that our 'representatives' WILL pass some kind of universal health coverage for everyone soon, possibly this year. It's inevitable. And then in a few years the US will go broke and we'll become a 3rd world nation. I'll need a place to stay then. Do you have any extra room in your flat?

I live in a castle, as all Englishmen do, so you're welcome anytime
As I understand it the US is already pretty broke (the $10trillion debt I mentioned somewhere) - although, it's not that bad, only 100% of GDP).
I think the problem is Americans' innate dislike of the concept of tax. I understand why many Americans think like that. You live in a vast country where, particularly in the sparsely populated areas there is a tradition of self reliance, and an understandable suspicion of outside inteference. Unfortunately when you live in areas of high population density like some of your coastal states and most European countries it is simply not possible to have a functioning society without some kind of communal care system, be it social security or healthcare, or whatever because the disparaties in wealth and opportunities ultimately lead to rampant crime, anger and collapse of society.

This probably sounds like its coming straight out of 'Das Kapital', but it can't be argued that large inequities, and large numbers of poor people living on top of each other with a few very rich people has been the cause of most of the revolutions and subsequent misery that followed in the 20th century.

I don't see higher taxation as necessarily bad. It fosters social cohesion (yes you do get scroungers - but then there are plenty of them in the stock markets, media, sports etc., doing relatively little for the vast sums they make). It also allows you to shout even louder at public servents: 'I pay your wages'. As for the argument that the state always screws things up, heck, we have plenty of previously state owned companies in the UK who have made things far worse and expensive than was previously the case - public transport and utilities etc.

Another thing that sickens me is the 'privatise the profits', 'nationalise the debts' modus operandi prevalent over here, and I guess in the US aswell, at the moment.

I think I'm woffling now. Anyway, you are welcome to come and stay anytime. Provided you can stand to come and live in a 3rd world country (which by implication is what you were saying). Although, I don't actually think the UK is quite in the 3rd world category yet, even after having had healthcare for all since 1948. Heck, we could afford a national health care system in 1948(!), when Britain was bankrupt, still on rations, with millions of bombed out homes etc. Surely you can't be serious when you think America will go broke under the staggering weight of paying for health care for the remaining 15% without the insurance!

SWEET! A castle!

We do have a communal care system, Welfare. Are you familiar with our government handouts to stay home, not work, no need for education, collect checks, have Enormous families so the entire vicious cycle will purpetuate itself? I've seen in in action for years! And they have gov't health care, if they just sign up or actually go to the doctor. Most of the problem is, they don't know HOW to use HC. People will call for an ambulance at 4am because they've been sick for 3 days or stumped their toe 6hrs ago. I've been there and witnessed first hand. These additionaly cost (ambulances, medics and then emergency room) are part of what's driving our costs up.

Another problem is with the vilanfication of the wealthy. Since the fall of our markets (hell, before that) polloticians were blaming EVERYTHING on the wealthy. Granted some were making unimaginable (too me anyway) amount of money. But these were the same people whom the gov't were supposed to be watching and regulating...Brokers, bankers, lenders, etc...

That leads into the the Complete lack of connection between voters and their representitives. The catch phrase now is 'disenfranchised'. There's only one way to cure that...don't put them back in office. Time will tell....

I don't think most Americans mind taxes, they know they're a necessary evil. But what I think most Americans would say is that they aren't taxed fairly. I saw a senator the other day say that he had a plan to where if we implimented a 13% flat tax, do away with most deductions, we could be out of debt in 10-15 years (or somewhere around that). I say go for it!

 

[8236]

I'll voice a concern or two. However invalid some might find them, they are food for thought for a lot of people.

First, I watched one of Obama's 'town halls' where he was discussing health care. In one sentence he said that the government would do so much better at providing HC for citizens. Two minutes later he was stating one of the reason for a new government system was because Medicare/caid was going to be bankrupt in 7-10 years. What?!

Problem: 2 gov't HC systems are going bankrupt
Solution: Create another

Fair enough.

I mean, really, what has the government every really undertaken and it run smoothly, effectively, efficiently and frugally? Remember when it used to be joked that the Pentagon spent $50 for a hammer and $100 for a toilet seat? If you do, then you remember it wasn't far from the truth! The same gov't that responded to Katrina, then outsourced to private corps for everything else. Look at the RAMPANT corruption and price gouging and fraud going on there!

Are these figures not because of outsourcing to the private sector. I guess they should have done their accounting better. The Custer & Battles fiasco is a case in point (I guess you must know about that cos I do and I'm in the UK).
As I pointed out in my previous post, there are plenty of examples in the UK of nationalised industries going private and being far worse as a result - all they have to do is keep their shareholders happy, not the general public. The promised competition bringing down prices became illusory. The thing is that America has never really experienced transitions from nationalisation to privatisation to have anything to compare to (as far as I know). I'm sure there are plenty of private corps where individuals claim ridiculous expenses. Afterall, they are even less accountable than governments and their bodies. It often seems far harder to replace them than governments, as in the world of shareholding all votes are not equal.

Again, Katrina, isn't the problem there the government having its back against the wall because lack of funding for FEMA, so private business could come in and demand whatever they wanted. I dunno, is it a lack of competition? Big business pulling government strings or really government inefficiency. One problem I think the US has here is the number of law-makers enslaved to big business for campaign donations. I would suggest a cap on spending - probably too socialist though.

Now, I'm about as far south from Canada as you can get. So people crossing over for meds, I know little about. Maybe it's some sort of gov't regulation on pharmaceuticals or the companies. Worth looking into.
I'm not at all against HC reform! I welcome it! And again, I'm not totally informed in all the in's and out's of what's broken with our current system and why. I just know that paying $4-5 per pill of Tylenol and $2-3 per 2x4 pad is freaking unreal!

I meant mail order drugs. I think thats how a lot of it is done.

Anyhow, I need a smoke....

I agree. Too much typing for one day Cheerz

 

[xsited1]

Some Americans (like myself) have a problem with the government getting too big and powerful. This is a complicated issue, but rest assured that our 'representatives' WILL pass some kind of universal health coverage for everyone soon, possibly this year. It's inevitable. And then in a few years the US will go broke and we'll become a 3rd world nation. I'll need a place to stay then. Do you have any extra room in your flat?

I live in a castle, as all Englishmen do, so you're welcome anytime
As I understand it the US is already pretty broke (the $10trillion debt I mentioned somewhere) - although, it's not that bad, only 100% of GDP).
I think the problem is Americans' innate dislike of the concept of tax. I understand why many Americans think like that. You live in a vast country where, particularly in the sparsely populated areas there is a tradition of self reliance, and an understandable suspicion of outside inteference. Unfortunately when you live in areas of high population density like some of your coastal states and most European countries it is simply not possible to have a functioning society without some kind of communal care system, be it social security or healthcare, or whatever because the disparaties in wealth and opportunities ultimately lead to rampant crime, anger and collapse of society.

This probably sounds like its coming straight out of 'Das Kapital', but it can't be argued that large inequities, and large numbers of poor people living on top of each other with a few very rich people has been the cause of most of the revolutions and subsequent misery that followed in the 20th century.

I don't see higher taxation as necessarily bad. It fosters social cohesion (yes you do get scroungers - but then there are plenty of them in the stock markets, media, sports etc., doing relatively little for the vast sums they make). It also allows you to shout even louder at public servents: 'I pay your wages'. As for the argument that the state always screws things up, heck, we have plenty of previously state owned companies in the UK who have made things far worse and expensive than was previously the case - public transport and utilities etc.

Another thing that sickens me is the 'privatise the profits', 'nationalise the debts' modus operandi prevalent over here, and I guess in the US aswell, at the moment.

I think I'm woffling now. Anyway, you are welcome to come and stay anytime. Provided you can stand to come and live in a 3rd world country (which by implication is what you were saying). Although, I don't actually think the UK is quite in the 3rd world category yet, even after having had healthcare for all since 1948. Heck, we could afford a national health care system in 1948(!), when Britain was bankrupt, still on rations, with millions of bombed out homes etc. Surely you can't be serious when you think America will go broke under the staggering weight of paying for health care for the remaining 15% without the insurance!

I appreciate the offer! I'll take you up on it in a few years.

BTW, America will go bankrupt because of all the government debts, including nationalized healthcare. You probably remember the Bush Administration running up the debt. Well, now we've got Bush-III that some people call Obama that is putting us over the top. We've already got government programs like Social Security and Medicare that are going broke, so why not add a few more trillion dollar programs?

 

[8236]

SWEET! A castle!

I was joking. I think(?) you know I was. Something along the lines of that old gem 'every Englishman's home is his castle'. I live in a flat really

We do have a communal care system, Welfare. Are you familiar with our government handouts to stay home, not work, no need for education, collect checks, have Enormous families so the entire vicious cycle will purpetuate itself? I've seen in in action for years! And they have gov't health care, if they just sign up or actually go to the doctor. Most of the problem is, they don't know HOW to use HC. People will call for an ambulance at 4am because they've been sick for 3 days or stumped their toe 6hrs ago. I've been there and witnessed first hand. These additionaly cost (ambulances, medics and then emergency room) are part of what's driving our costs up.

Yep I know exactly what u mean. We get the same over here

I don't think most Americans mind taxes, they know they're a necessary evil. But what I think most Americans would say is that they aren't taxed fairly. I saw a senator the other day say that he had a plan to where if we implimented a 13% flat tax, do away with most deductions, we could be out of debt in 10-15 years (or somewhere around that). I say go for it!

I've never understood this. In what way is a flat rate tax fair?
We don't have a flat rate tax here in the UK, but it is a fact that even though the rich are supposed to pay a higher proportion of their income in taxation, the top 10% pay a lower proportion of their income in tax than the poorest 10%. They can do this because they can afford to pay for creative accounting etc. This would be even more marked if there were a flat rate tax.
The poor also pay a higher propotion of income in tax because of the high taxation (in the UK at least) on fuel, and 'luxuries' like tobacco and alcohol.
The only way I would ever support a flat tax rate would be if was solely an income tax and all other taxes, like sales, alcohol, fuel etc. were abolished, and also, provisions were made to stop the rich sneaking away their incomes into ofshore institutions etc. (ofcourse corporation taxes etc. are a different matter, but I'm a science dude, and don't know much about that sorta thing.)

 

[SWGAFire]

LOL yes, I knew you were joking about the castle! I don't think I'd really want one, though. Drafty things I've heard. And I couldn't handle all the old surfs haunting the place up! However, one of those stately country English manors we see on TV over here all the time.

Now, one of your comments mentioned the creative accounting of the rich. That's why I incerted the idea of closing Most deductions. Do away with a majority of those 'creative' practices. And in that, I wholly support penalizing those 'off shore' accounts!

 

[Oddball]

1: If the Canadian system sucks, why do so many Americans buy their medication from Canada.

Because the Canadian gubmint subsidizes medications and the Americans go nort of the border to scoop up on the foolhardiness of those subsidies.

2: Overall life expectancy in the US is lower than in Canada, the UK, Puerto-Rico and - shockingly - Jordan (Neigbour of Irak!). The US comes in at #35, just above Albania, an impoverished ex-commie state next to Greece (which also does better than the US).

1) Much of that has to do with the American lyfestyle...we like to have fun.

2) A whole slew of nations on that goofy list (like Albania) are microcosms of a mostly homogeneous ethnicity, and with populations that wouldn't add up to a large American metro area.

3: America spends twice as much as the British do on health (as % of GDP), but yet still 15% of Americans have no insurance. That together with the life expectancy makes me think you're being ripped off.

To a great extent, Americans spend more for the best reason in the world..... because we can. What those who have no insurance has to do with this, I have no idea.

4: The UK National Health Service is paid for out of general taxation, but nobody is forced to use it. There are plenty of private insurance schemes here, and if you can afford them then fine, but then it's also good that those wealthy people pay some tax for the benefit of the poor who can't. In fact, many people over here also get private health insurance as part of the jobs - just like in the US, and the NHS acts as a safety net for the poor and those who lose their jobs and insurance - not unlikely in these economic times.

That's your problem, buster.

So, I really don't understand many Americans hostility to health care for all. Maybe I just don't understand the issues. If it is all about money, why not cut some of the defence budget - afterall the US spends as much on defence as the rest of the world combined (another figure that shocks me). Nobody in the US ever seems to question the amount spent on the military so I guess the issue can't be big government either. I'm confused. Someone please explain. Thanx

A lot of our ancestors left Great Britain for a lot of different reasons that those putting up with King George couldn't understand.....Nothing new here.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You've maybe/probably heard all this b4, but I just don't understand the loud hostility of many Americans to the so-called 'socialist' healthcare systems of Canada and the UK.

You could have saved us all a lot of trouble and blather if you had bothered to read the other threads on this and taken notes, instead of jumping right to starting your own and making us repeat this for the eleventy-billionth time.

Sensationalist statements like 'Communist', 'Death panels' and (lol) 'have you seen the state of Brits' teeth' (<-might come back to that one some other time), strike me as bizarre. I probably only get to see the wackier stuff that people come out with in the US, but I've been doing a bit of reading around:

1: If the Canadian system sucks, why do so many Americans buy their medication from Canada.

There's a world of difference between some Americans exploiting a quirk of the Canadian system and all of us actually trying to live under the entire Canadian system. You comprehend the difference, I trust?

Do you know why pharmaceuticals are so much cheaper in Canada - and, indeed, virtually all of the rest of the industrialized world - than they are in the US? You probably don't, so let me fill you in.

The pharmaceutical industry is subject to price controls in every industrialized nation except ours. This means that their governments legally prevent pharmaceutical companies from selling their products there for much more than the cost of production. Drug companies are willing to do this because they make up the cost of R&D in the prices they charge Americans.

So in essence, all the smarmy bastards who like to sit back and smugly pronounce on how much better their systems are than ours owe the financial underpinning of those systems to us. You're welcome.

2: Overall life expectancy in the US is lower than in Canada, the UK, Puerto-Rico and - shockingly - Jordan (Neigbour of Irak!). The US comes in at #35, just above Albania, an impoverished ex-commie state next to Greece (which also does better than the US).

I am going to get a freaking macro to repeat this to you twinks, because I swear to God, I have had to post this so many times now, I could repeat it in my sleep. This would be an example of one of those things you should have read on the gazillion OTHER threads first, rather than rushing in and making us do it again.

Life expectancy has nothing - zip, zilch, nada - to do with health care in the industrialized world, and not as much as you might think in developing nations. Be serious, Spanky. Do you really, GENUINELY think that the United States health care system is so deficient that it actually changes the life expectancy of a nation of 300 million people? Really? Is that really what you're sitting there, seriously thinking?

In fact, life expectancy is affected much more by factors totally out of the control of doctors and hospitals, things like homicide rates, accidents, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. And no, socioeconomic status doesn't change things because of lack of access to health care due to money. Even when those people are given access to quality health care - which they are, thank you very much - via free clinics, their life expectancies don't change, because they're attributable to factors like diet and nutrition, heredity, etc.

The United States is a much less homogenous society than most industrialized countries. That means that when you take an average of our entire population, you are getting much more widely divergent results factored into the equation. The group with either the lowest or second-lowest (can't remember which just now) life expectancy in the United States is one that your country doesn't have: the Native Americans. This is just by way of an example.

By the way, the study you're quoting from has been discredited on this board so many times that I'm truly offended that you're even wasting our time with it again.

3: America spends twice as much as the British do on health (as % of GDP), but yet still 15% of Americans have no insurance. That together with the life expectancy makes me think you're being ripped off.

Then perhaps you ought to think a bit harder. Maybe this time you could try engaging your brain in the exercise.

Did you ever bother to consider WHAT we spend that money on? Or did you just look at the raw numbers and assume all that was being spent on bare medical necessities? When you look at national healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP, you have to keep in mind exactly what is going into that statistic. It includes elective procedures like cosmetic surgery; dental work, including those things that aren't strictly necessary, like crowns, caps, and veneers; prosthetics such as hearing aids, which are very pricey and rarely covered by medical insurance, and also need to be upgraded periodically; quality of life procedures like laser eye surgery and weight loss surgery; and over-the-counter medications, including vitamins.

The United States is a wealthy country, with a wealthy and aging population that, even in economic downturns, has quite a bit of discretionary income. People forget that health care isn't just getting stitches and setting broken bones and getting life-saving surgery. It's also very much a luxury item, particularly to senior citizens. It costs a lot of money to keep a fifty-year-old woman looking and feeling like she's thirty, and it says a lot about the economic health of our nation that so many here can and do spend that money.

4: The UK National Health Service is paid for out of general taxation, but nobody is forced to use it. There are plenty of private insurance schemes here, and if you can afford them then fine, but then it's also good that those wealthy people pay some tax for the benefit of the poor who can't. In fact, many people over here also get private health insurance as part of the jobs - just like in the US, and the NHS acts as a safety net for the poor and those who lose their jobs and insurance - not unlikely in these economic times.

Tell me, why is it that people in the UK aren't forced to use the NHS? I think you and I both know that that wasn't always the case, and your nation's health care system became such an open scandal that your government was forced to incorporate elements of OUR system, like allowing private health insurance, to fix the problem. Now you want to sit back and brag about how spiffy it is and brush the past under the rug and pretend it was always that way, and that that was what you folks intended. Don't bullshit us.

As for government programs that "act as a safety net", we already have those ourselves, although your vaunted media might have forgotten to mention them. I realize the European press likes to depict the US as allowing poor people to drop dead in the gutters for the street sweepers to haul away. In fact, we're just not inclined to extend them beyond the poor and allow even more people to use our safety net as a hammock.

I've seen TV reports showing thousands of (mainly poor black) people queueing in and around a football stadium for hours and hours, just to get some basic help on an assembly line kind of system with absolutely no privacy at all - it looked more like something I expect to see in Africa, not the worlds richest nation. Then there was the woman who had to sell her house and was living in a tent with her husband in order to pay for the cancer drugs she needed. Don't know about you but I find that quite shocking. Maybe I'm just being bamboozled by the media, but I thank my lucky stars I live in a country where everybody's life is regarded as of (reasonably) equal value. I thought the US constitution said something about equality somewhere... must have been meant selectively... oooh, heck, it was! It didn't apply to slaves (then) and obviously the poor (then, now and in the future too probably).

Well, that certainly proves my point about your sterling media and its unbiased coverage.

Let me take this in order. First of all, yes, a bunch of deluded do-gooders who have been bamboozled by the media into believing that poor people are wandering around like stray cats with no health care do periodically club together and decide to have these massive health care circle jerks so they can feel good about themselves and their contribution to poor people they would otherwise never speak to. And because people are that way, they will queue up for anything that's free and to take advantage of the ignorance and naivete of people who desperately want to feel compassionate.

When I was younger, I drove a taxicab. One of my regular customers was a "homeless" man, who spent all day on a traffic island at a busy intersection, holding a sign begging for money. In the evenings, I would pull up at the gas station across the street from where he was and pick him up, then drive him to a decent residential neighborhood, turn down an alley, and drop him off at the back door of the house he owned, so no one would see the "homeless panhandler" entering or leaving. Take a lesson.

Second of all, selling a house and living in a tent to pay for cancer drugs? Really? You REALLY, seriously believe this? These people either had something else going on in their lives that they forgot to mention, they were bullshitting for the cameras, or they were stupid to the point of being criminal. People with that sort of catastrophic illness in the United States are eligible for Medicaid, and quite possibly Medicare as well. It doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of asking to get someone to tell you that. Hell, they're practically ADVERTISING for people to sign up for Medicaid benefits.

Third, as to how splendiferously equal your nation's healthcare is, shut the hell up. Your own government is reporting that NHS performance figures consistently show widening gaps between best- and worst-performing healthcare providers, and vastly different survival rates depending on where patients live. Your own press refers to it as the "postcode lottery", because a person's chances for timely, high-quality treatment depends on the "postcode" in which he lives.

One study found that if the proportion of cancer-related illnesses and deaths were the same in Britain's lowest socioeconomic groups as in the most affluent, there would be 16,600 fewer deaths from cancer each year. The British Heart Foundation found that premature death rates for working-class men are 58% higher than non-working-class men. They estimate that more than 5,000 working-class men under the age of sixty-five die of coronary heart disease each year in Britain because of variations in health care access for socioeconomic groups.

The Good Hospital Guide confirms the disparity between rich and poor areas. In a rating of British hospitals, it showed that among London hospitals (as an example), the ones with the best performances just happened to be located in or near the wealthiest sectors of the city. The worst-performing are located in the most economically depressed area of the city. In addition, there are nearly four times as many doctors per 100 patients in the wealthy sector as the poor.

So don't come in here bloviating about the stellar "egalitarianism" of your nation over ours, all right?

Fourth, when I want to hear some punk from another country spouting off about what the US Constitution says and what it should mean to us in practice, I will signal that by being so rude and boorish as to barge into a message board from YOUR country and start shooting my mouth off about YOUR governing documents and how YOU should run your country. Until I am that crass and ill-mannered, perhaps it would be a good idea if YOU refrained from being so. So much for the stereotype that British people are polite and courteous.

So, I really don't understand many Americans hostility to health care for all. Maybe I just don't understand the issues. If it is all about money, why not cut some of the defence budget - afterall the US spends as much on defence as the rest of the world combined (another figure that shocks me). Nobody in the US ever seems to question the amount spent on the military so I guess the issue can't be big government either. I'm confused. Someone please explain. Thanx

What's not to understand? We don't want your crappy system, we don't consider it better than ours, and we're tired right down to our toenails of hearing from a bunch of pompous, smug little prigs who have never lived in our country but imagine that we are waiting breathlessly to hear their unsolicited advice on how to run it.

In addition, concerning your mention of our military budgets - which, incidentally, are traditionally high in part because of the need for us to aid in the protection of the REST of the world, and you're welcome for THAT, as well - if you truly knew as much about our Constitution as you like to flatter yourself that you do, you would know that some of us take its provisions very seriously, and have no wish to see our government extending itself beyond the jobs it has specifically been given. National defense is one of those jobs; healthcare provision is not. Spending a lot on one thing is not "big government". Taking on dozens of things, particularly ones that aren't listed in the Constitution, is.

PS. I believe the US media dug up some Brit politician to slag off the UK's NHS. First of all he is member of the European parliament (MEP), not the UK's. No UK MP would dare say what he did. Second it's easy for a guy on over $100000 a year (basic) to come out with what he said. Third he was severely reprimanded by his party's leader in the UK (lol, silly Tory bastard ).

PS. If you think only one guy in your government is pissing all over your extra-special system, you're deluded. But hey, again, if you like it, have it. Unlike you British, we don't feel any special need to tell you how to run your country.

 

[Cecilie1200]

All valid questions, thanks. You're not apt to find a straight answer from those opposed to healthcare for all, however.

Very good OP 8326.

But eventually the anti-healthcare crowd will dissolve into calling you a homosexual. It'll take 5 minutes or so until they've exhausted the fascist/socialist themes......but it WILL happen.

As opposed to the leftists, who open with gaybaiting and THEN go on to shouting, "Just like Hitler!"

 

[auditor0007]

SWEET! A castle!

I was joking. I think(?) you know I was. Something along the lines of that old gem 'every Englishman's home is his castle'. I live in a flat really

We do have a communal care system, Welfare. Are you familiar with our government handouts to stay home, not work, no need for education, collect checks, have Enormous families so the entire vicious cycle will purpetuate itself? I've seen in in action for years! And they have gov't health care, if they just sign up or actually go to the doctor. Most of the problem is, they don't know HOW to use HC. People will call for an ambulance at 4am because they've been sick for 3 days or stumped their toe 6hrs ago. I've been there and witnessed first hand. These additionaly cost (ambulances, medics and then emergency room) are part of what's driving our costs up.

Yep I know exactly what u mean. We get the same over here

I don't think most Americans mind taxes, they know they're a necessary evil. But what I think most Americans would say is that they aren't taxed fairly. I saw a senator the other day say that he had a plan to where if we implimented a 13% flat tax, do away with most deductions, we could be out of debt in 10-15 years (or somewhere around that). I say go for it!

I've never understood this. In what way is a flat rate tax fair?
We don't have a flat rate tax here in the UK, but it is a fact that even though the rich are supposed to pay a higher proportion of their income in taxation, the top 10% pay a lower proportion of their income in tax than the poorest 10%. They can do this because they can afford to pay for creative accounting etc. This would be even more marked if there were a flat rate tax.
The poor also pay a higher propotion of income in tax because of the high taxation (in the UK at least) on fuel, and 'luxuries' like tobacco and alcohol.
The only way I would ever support a flat tax rate would be if was solely an income tax and all other taxes, like sales, alcohol, fuel etc. were abolished, and also, provisions were made to stop the rich sneaking away their incomes into ofshore institutions etc. (ofcourse corporation taxes etc. are a different matter, but I'm a science dude, and don't know much about that sorta thing.)

A flat tax would still be progressive if done properly. And the proper way to do it is to exempt the first so many thousand dollars, say $25,000 per person and allow for a smaller exemption for children. After that, the full rate kicks in, and there are no deductions, no loopholes, no way to hide earnings. Last of all, the flat tax should be on all earnings, whether they be wages, capital gains, corporate taxes, or estate taxes. Everyone pays. But with the initial exemption, lower income earners would pay a smaller percentage. In fact, as it is now, quite a few would not pay any tax at all.

Addressing another question you had about why people in the US hate paying higher taxes; I think one of the biggest issues is that it seems to most of us that so much money is wasted on who knows what. Paying taxes and receiving some type of service in return is not a bad thing. The problem is that most of us see the government as a bad not for profit charity that only gives back five or ten percent of the proceeds and squanders the rest.

 

[8236]

You've maybe/probably heard all this b4, but I just don't understand the loud hostility of many Americans to the so-called 'socialist' healthcare systems of Canada and the UK.

You could have saved us all a lot of trouble and blather if you had bothered to read the other threads on this and taken notes, instead of jumping right to starting your own and making us repeat this for the eleventy-billionth time.

Then why did u bother to reply.
Strange how some of the most hostile people here are women (which I presume u r).
As for telling u how to run ur country, 1. I am doing no such thing. and 2. LOOL, thats a cheek coming from an American - u r experts extra-ordinary in doing exactly that to half the world.

Might bother to reply to the rest of your hostile rant if I can convince myself this thread has not vanished.

 

[Diuretic]

Things get sparky when national values are up for discussion. And it's difficult to generalise about any nation's values because they do change over time, they have to. And I think many of us - individuals and nations as well - sometimes try to hang on to outdated values because we think they define us, all of us look to our past, our ancestors, to try and understand who we are now.

Before Britain adopted the welfare state policy she relied on private charities and workhouse laws to deal with poverty. It's only been post-WWII that Britain has had a sense of a fair society being a good society and Thatcher tried to destroy that to the cheers of the Hooray Henrys.

Oh and on edit I agree with Cecilie - we don't have the right to tell another country what its domestic social policies should be. We can say, as we would to any friend, " have you thought about trying this....?" However misrepresentations of one's own country should result in the misrepresenter having the blowtorch applied to their belly. That means I'll have to be very careful now.....

 

[Toro]

I'm a Canadian living in America and I have seen both the good and the bad of both systems.

The biggest obstacle to reform is simply that the majority of Americans have very good healthcare and are generally happy with their program. It is not perfect, and there is a lot of anxiety regarding the stability of their healthcare - what if they lose their job? - but they don't want to risk what they have.

Americans are also far more individualistic than nations with more government involvement. Foreigners tend to look at this attitude and think "selfish Americans" but they misunderstand the American nature and mindset. Americans are more likely to see themselves as individual sovereigns than most other nations, who view themselves more in the collective. They put more emphasis on individual freedoms and responsibilities. The idea of the government taking care of them is generally not viewed as positive (even if seniors like Medicare), unlike in most other countries.

For the record, I have better healthcare in America than I had in Canada. But I do fine financially, and if I were to ever lose my job and become poor, I'd move back to Canada in a heartbeat because the poor are treated better there.