I want the honest truth on this.

[demmalition1]

Summary at the bottom, reading is for background of the questions

2 weeks ago, my uncle flew in from Washington with his family to come visit us; he is a pastor at a church and is VERY consrevative (although, he is a caring, loving person that would do anything for me despite the tone of the following). At the dinner table, politics came up between us and we got to healthcare. He said that if we were to adopt univ. Healthcare that not only would we as a country go bankrupt, but that millions would receive much worse healthcare quality than before. He cited the fact that there were hundreds (or thousands, I forgot which) of Canadians crossing the border near his house to get "basic healthcare requirements" not given under the Canadian system and that it was an utter failure.

Now, I am the only liberal at thr table (of 7) and started to debate him on how we are 38th in terms of quality and how 47 million people don't even have healthcare. The topic started to get heated until the food arrived, at which point it was promptly dropped.

3 days ago we (my family, he flew back) went out to eat and were remenissing on this when healthcare came up again. I used the before argument and others (we pay the most (although some of it is a higher level of technological avaliability per hospital), the unnecessary drugs, some (not all) doctor salaries at 400k, the insurance cos. profits are excessive, others as well too numerous to post here).
My Dad said that he worked for his money and that the people who were unemployed would leech the system, that he earned his money and shouldn't have to spend it on another person because they should help themselves, long waiting periods for minor surgeries (see my "cure" thread for more), that we would be bankrupt, and one other thing...
I was born on March 24th, 1990 24 weeks early at 1lb. 4oz.. I had a 1 in 10,000,000 chance of survival and numerous complications (and scars to prove it); even if I lived I would've been mentally handicapped by all accounts. I was part of an expirementtal procedure along with 100 other babies and lived. My I.Q. Is 136 and I am somewhat healthy (more complications than normal).

My Dad said that if I were born in the U.K. or Canada, etc. that I would have died from being denied treatment because of the "statistical survivability rate" being too low and the govt. not waisting money (even though mortality is less there). He paid around 80k for me out of pocket to get the treatment.

Let me make 2 things clear:
1. I love my Dad with no end and his comment didn't phase me at all. I can understand his logic and feelings/emotions on this.
2. Although I do want univ. care, I would give it up as long as everyone is insured one way or another. I tend to read all sides of an argument before I formulate an opinion.

SUMMARY:
I would like these questions answered:
1. Does Canada's hwalthcare really suck that bad? Are there canadians coming here for medical purposes?
2. What problems are there with French/U.K. Healthcare? Because our media (except Faux) says mostly good things on it.
3. What is an outsider's perspective on American healthcare?
4. Would I have died?

I made this not to prod at anyone/thing, only to get a deeper understanding of the opinions and facts of the world around me.

Cheers, it's 3:30 a.m. here and the Palm Pre's keyboard is TINY!

EDIT: Pt. 2 on pg. 3

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

I guess this excludes Americans from answering. One thing's for sure though. We all know medical treatment is overpriced and doctors probably do get paid too much. Not sure where I stand on the universal healthcare though.

 

[walls of cetepedes]

Right-O, Englishman away.

1on't know, I'm English.
2:The main problems are people in certain areas being denied treatment, for no decernible reason.
3:It seems rather unfair to those who cannot afford health insurance.
4:In England? Not unless your parents said so. You'd even make the news and get tons of support.

Or course, this is only what I've been told, so don't quote me on this.

 

[Woem]

Let me answer that you would not have died. Let's assume that a European health-care center would not have funded the operation, then nothing stops you from funding it yourself. Do note that you are more likely to receive treatment than not receive it. In hospitals in Belgium treatment is given to the needy, even if you can't provide any form of identification. We take care of you first and worry about the bill later.

Now about the statistics thing: statistics really do not matter. There is a written list about ailments for which treatment gets refunded and if your condition is on the list, then you will get payed. The idea that someone would say "sorry, this baby doesn't have enough chance of survival, we'll just not operate" is ridiculous our current system.

And as to my opinion to America's health-care system: there is a lot to be improved and the fact that some people compare Obama with Hitler, to me, is very offensive and tells me that those people really have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

 

[LongAndShort]

I understood that thousands of Americans cross the border each year to get subsidized drugs from the Canadians and that the only Canadians who went south were the ones who afford expensive treatments and didn't want to wait. If this is untrue I'd be interested for anyone to clear it up.

 

[DarkLordofDevon]

The UK system, whilst gets a lot of grief, does work. One the few occassions I have been in hospital including removing my appendix the quality of service has been a high standard. Admittedly it depends which hospital you go to, but still. I was brought in, given a check up to find out what was wrong, schedueled for surgery, sorted out and sent home when I was feeling up to it.

The UK system would work alot better if the government WOULD STOP MESSING WITH IT. They keep closing hospitals down and giving OUR TAX MONEY THAT IS SUPPOSED TO FUND THE NHS TO PRIVATE HOSPITALS. This makes no sense since the private hospitals are going to charge anyway, and its almost exclusively the NHS that deals with A & E cases. So it would work if the government gave our health care system more funding and support. But because they don't, we have the issues people ***** about.

And no. There is never a point where someone will be left to die. Our doctors, surgeons and nurses all work just as hard to keep people alive as other countries. Only difference is we pay ours through taxes so we don't pay a massive bill afterwards.

 

[SamtheDeathclaw]

I'm American (I rather wish I was not) so I can't answer anything other than the first. It's a myth. Some Canadians DO come to America for treatment, but not thousands or even hundreds. There's probably about 20 a year, maybe a little more. These are the ones that are really afraid of dying (the rich old folk) and don't want to wait more than a week-month. There are some that would die if they had to wait until their appointed date, but these are normally people that have a low chance of survival. So, yes Canada did screw up on their healthcare. But this doesn't mean we will. :|

 

[notsosavagemessiah]

The UK system, whilst gets a lot of grief, does work. One the few occassions I have been in hospital including removing my appendix the quality of service has been a high standard. Admittedly it depends which hospital you go to, but still. I was brought in, given a check up to find out what was wrong, schedueled for surgery, sorted out and sent home when I was feeling up to it.

The UK system would work alot better if the government WOULD STOP MESSING WITH IT. They keep closing hospitals down and giving OUR TAX MONEY THAT IS SUPPOSED TO FUND THE NHS TO PRIVATE HOSPITALS. This makes no sense since the private hospitals are going to charge anyway, and its almost exclusively the NHS that deals with A & E cases. So it would work if the government gave our health care system more funding and support. But because they don't, we have the issues people ***** about.

And no. There is never a point where someone will be left to die. Our doctors, surgeons and nurses all work just as hard to keep people alive as other countries. Only difference is we pay ours through taxes so we don't pay a massive bill afterwards.

The U.S. NEEDS this system. I don't get why people are so damn afraid of it. I mean, REALLY why.

 

[XJ-0461]

As a native member of the land of tea and crumpets (England), here are my views:

1)I wouldn't know about Canada's healthcare service.
2)We have to wait a bit, bt other than that things seem ok.
3)Like Fat Man Spoon said, it seems unfair to those without insurance.
4)I'm not sure, but I don't think you would have died.

 

[demmalition1]

Thanks for all of the replies, this is much faster than I initially expected!

 

[DarkLordofDevon]

The U.S. NEEDS this system. I don't get why people are so damn afraid of it. I mean, REALLY why.

Its because of the knee jerk reaction to anything that is 'free'. Many Americans don't like anything vaguely socialistic because of the COMMUNIST implications. Hence, a free health care system reminds the more extreme people too much of that which they hate the most, hence they blow things out of proportion with claims like 'They let people die'.


To be fair, it got a lot of resistance here before we implemented it. The doctors in particular tried to take the government to court to prevented it being brought in. But in the end it was done and I'd say we're better off because of it.

 

[Simalacrum]

well, I can't answer all those questions, but I can tell you that in Britain our healthcare system is under heavy criticism - the NHS (National Health Service) provides free healthcare for all British citizens. However its costing the government billions and their are numerous stories of poor hygene, poor quality traning of nurses, and a general view that the system needs improving (though very few are encouraging the abolition of the NHS itself)

Generally speaking I think we compare our healthcare with other European countries rather than America, though I have heard that healthcare and technology is incredibly advanced there, mainly due to private non-governement funding - it gets more money from people paying for their treatments than being payed a fixed rate from the government. This was also the case previously in Britain, and one of the initial protests against the NHS when it was first established.

 

[Simriel]

There is no truth, only degrees of falsehood.

 

[Jirlond]

If it was an experimental procedure you would have been given it in any country trying to adapt it, including the UK.

 

[KeyMaster45]

So, yes Canada did screw up on their healthcare. But this doesn't mean we will. :|

Hold on, I need to stop my cynical and maniacal laughter on this one.

*gasps*

Being American and seeing how very little we can get right in this country I can safely say that there will be very little that we would get right with a health-care reform.

The government is trying to step on the toes of the health-care industry, an industry that when it needs to can get shit done. People think that the current struggle is between the left and right wings of america. Not true, the struggle taking place right now is between the health-care industry and the government because congress has its sights set on the industry's wallet.

Not everything has to do with losing rights and all that other bullshit we see in the media; this is all about money and baby, its going to be a very long very ugly battle with only the people being hurt in the end no matter the outcome.

 

[rossatdi]

I was born on March 24th, 1990 24 weeks early at 1lb. 4oz.. I had a 1 in 10,000,000 chance of survival and numerous complications (and scars to prove it); even if I lived I would've been mentally handicapped by all accounts. I was part of an expirementtal procedure along with 100 other babies and lived. My I.Q. Is 136 and I am somewhat healthy (more complications than normal).

My Dad said that if I were born in the U.K. or Canada, etc. that I would have died from being denied treatment because of the "statistical survivability rate" being too low and the govt. not waisting money (even though mortality is less there). He paid around 80k for me out of pocket to get the treatment.

Your Dad is wrong. I was born 6 weeks premature. I was not a well child. A kidney deformity (unrelated to the premature birth but exacerbated by it) lead to a string of severe urinary tract infections. In my first two years of life I was in hospital for about a third of that time and underwent at least five general anaesthetic surgeries. Years later when the deformed kidney was removed the tissue around it had been so damaged over the years that the doctors said they hadn't personally seen anything as serious.

I was treated and cared for at Northwick Park Hospital (a general, grubby NHS hospital near where we all lived) and for some parts Great Ormond Street (a specialist NHS childcare hospital in London). My parents paid nothing for this treatment (after all, who would insure a child that was having expensive problems right from the offset?).

Statistical chances of survival? I don't know. If we'd had to pay for it, it would have driven up the cost of insurance enormously and it is no exaggeration to say I would have been dead without all the treatment I received.

Now I am 23, I am a little overweight but very fit. I have no complications (but only one kidney!) and an IQ in the region of 145.

I understand there is a lot of misunderstanding about the NHS in America. Simply put - we all pay for it through taxes, because of this the resources are substantial. When people need treatment, they get it. There will always be people that fall through cracks in the system but I literally have my life because of it.

And it didn't cost 80k.

 

[Fulax]

SUMMARY:
I would like these questions answered:
1. Does Canada's hwalthcare really suck that bad? Are there canadians coming here for medical purposes?
2. What problems are there with French/U.K. Healthcare? Because our media (except Faux) says mostly good things on it.
3. What is an outsider's perspective on American healthcare?
4. Would I have died?
Y!

1. Don't know, I'm English.
2. Cost - The NHS costs every man woman and child approx 3 times more in taxes than they would have to pay for private insurance.
Waiting times - These have gone down over the past few years (after a doubling of the NHS' budget) but are still far too long in many cases
Doctors/Nurses - Under trained, underpaid and there aren't enough of them
Quality of care - Survival rates in the UK are much lower than you'd expect from an advanced western country.
Other problems include hygiene, denial of treatment and bureaucracy.
3. Flawed but better than ours. People seem to forget about the MediCare system whereby those who actually can't afford insurance get free healthcare. Keep in mind that no US politician is suggesting an NHS style healthcare system. Even former soviet states have got rid of their state-run healthcare monopoly.
4. Impossible to say, but I guarantee your odds were increased by living in the US.

 

[ben---neb]

I was born on March 24th, 1990 24 weeks early at 1lb. 4oz.. I had a 1 in 10,000,000 chance of survival and numerous complications (and scars to prove it); even if I lived I would've been mentally handicapped by all accounts. I was part of an expirementtal procedure along with 100 other babies and lived. My I.Q. Is 136 and I am somewhat healthy (more complications than normal).

I was treated and cared for at Northwick Park Hospital (a general, grubby NHS hospital near where we all lived) and for some parts Great Ormond Street (a specialist NHS childcare hospital in London). My parents paid nothing for this treatment (after all, who would insure a child that was having expensive problems right from the offset?).

Correction your parents did pay something for you to be saved just not upfront. If the NHS was privatised the corresponding dip in taxes that need to be collected would be equilant to scrapping Income Tax. Therefore your parents paid 20% of their income (more if they are richer) to safe your life.

No doubt this is an acceptable sacrifrice. Here's the thing though. They are stillp aying that 20%. Even though they might no longer use the NHS in a year. You are confusing free on point of use with the NHS being "free".