I want the honest truth on this.

[rossatdi]

Have to say your dads right, i wouldn't want my hard earned money to be spent on other people who sit on their arse and wait for the money to come. I don't know much about the health care in the states but i doubt its much better than the west European. Also i think you would be left for dead in UK or Canada because of your survival chance being so low, but its private health care takes care of big medical issues. Best thing you can do if you want to be treated well is to caugh up money

You're either being sarcastic or you're an idiot.

There is no case, ever, of someone being left to die - especially at infancy - based on chance of success. Insurance companies in the States deny people live saving treatment if they, because it saves them money.

As previously stated. The US spends twice the amount on health care as the UK does. Twice. Can you read that, run it through your brain and tell me how you can possible deny the advantage of a universal system that cost half the amount.

I was a sick kid, 6 weeks premature, with serious problems. I spent the first years of my life in and out of hospital without a penny paid for it on top of taxes.

In the US you are still being taxed so poor and elderly people can be treated. But the private insurance structure of the rest of the system has so massively inflated costs that these tax dollars are paying for over-priced care.

 

[rossatdi]

Have to say your dads right, i wouldn't want my hard earned money to be spent on other people who sit on their arse and wait for the money to come. I don't know much about the health care in the states but i doubt its much better than the west European. Also i think you would be left for dead in UK or Canada because of your survival chance being so low, but its private health care takes care of big medical issues. Best thing you can do if you want to be treated well is to caugh up money

You're either being sarcastic or you're an idiot.

There is no case, ever, of someone being left to die - especially at infancy - based on chance of success. Insurance companies in the States deny people live saving treatment if they, because it saves them money.

As previously stated. The US spends twice the amount on health care as the UK does. Twice. Can you read that, run it through your brain and tell me how you can possible deny the advantage of a universal system that cost half the amount.

I was a sick kid, 6 weeks premature, with serious problems. I spent the first years of my life in and out of hospital without a penny paid for it on top of taxes.

In the US you are still being taxed so poor and elderly people can be treated. But the private insurance structure of the rest of the system has so massively inflated costs that these tax dollars are paying for over-priced care.

As ive said i don't know much about the american health care but what i do know that if a person has 1 in 10 million chance to survive i doubt the government should spend money from taxes on that person when there's millions of other people with a bigger chance to survive. Free health care is good, its like the police, its free and keeps you safe since you pay taxes, but its still a public service and people are seen as equal and in that case the person with the biggest chance of survival should be on top of the list. I don't think a public hospital should devote time, effort and money trying to save someone with no chance of surviving while neglecting other patients. In my country public health care is free but if you have a big medical problem you go to a private hospital for better treatment. I'l say again i don't really know the details of the us system. Also dont be a fucking jerk just cause you have a different opinion. I pay my taxes and i want only other people who pay taxes to have the same treatment as me, regardless of what the person's social status is

Well to be honest, if you're going to start a point by claiming that two countries' health systems leave people to die based on their odds of survival you damn sure better expect rebuttal.

Healthcare is prioritised by needs, not odds, there is sufficient resources to make substantial efforts as an when people need it. The NHS is not straining at the seems because of over servicing people with a slim chance of life. Its the basic infrastructure that cost money - facilities, personnel, administration, etc.

 

[Echo_419]

At the end of the day the money is in Treatment and not causes. Think about that. In Ireland we pay 60 yo yo's to have a G.P. tell us to go to the Hospital to get treated where you have to pay more of your hard earned tin. Its a sick business.

 

[Korolev]

Let you die? Ahahahahaha. Not in Australia mate - we have a public health care option as well. Sometimes the Americans just don't know what they're on about.

True - people have died on the public system. I'd point out that people in the US and in Australia have died on the private system. Incompetence is incompetence and strikes in both the public and the private sector.

At least with the public system, they can't turn you away if you are seriously ill. I know they turn people away with the private health-care in the US (in other words, you can't GET healthcare if you're already sick over in the USA).

The public system is far from perfect - optional surgeries or non-life-threatening surgeries can take years. But if you have cancer or if you've got a serious, life-threatening medical condition, you can USUALLY get treatment over here in Australia for free (or for very little if you're poor) in a time frame which will let you live.

Again, in Australia, we have BOTH private and public. The two can co-exist. And I know for a FACT that if you tried to take away public healthcare in Australia or the UK, you'd have a damn near nation wide revolt on your hands. Yes, it's usually not as good as private healthcare. BUT AT LEAST IT'S SOMETHING.

 

[Korolev]

As for who gets treatment - it's strictly (and I mean strictly) first come first serve. No questions asked.

 

[Pimppeter2]

I'm indecisive on the Health care issue. I just haven't done enough homework to speak on it. Anyway, I think America will adopt a partial NHS.

Lots of people do have it good here, the way health care is and such, lots of people also have it bad. Its a hard decision

 

[El Poncho]

1.Don't know not from Canada of America.
2. I see nothing wrong with the healthcare, there is a list of who goes first but if you don't want to wait there is still private healthcare services which you can pay for so it's not NHS or nothing.
3. My perspective of American healthcare is that it costs too much so poor people will die just because they can't afford insurance. Just because they can't afford health care doesn't mean they don't deserve healthcare everyone deserves the right to have healthcare.
4. You would have had as much of a chance as you did in America, I have heard alot of stories of critically ill babies surviving from the NHS your Dad needs facts to back him up.

 

[Alienmen1]

Here ... the CANADIAN HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY

in canada we have universal healthcare

and im glad to have it... i used to be "Asmatique" (dont have the english term for it)

i needed medecine soo we bought the medecine and we got an refund from our health Care now think about it... you need an heart transplant... in america it would cost (dont know exactly) like 100 grand... 100,000$

here its free... i mean really... you dont want universal health care?

our gouverment have found an solution for the cost of universal health care

we (i mean litteraly) lose half of our salary

we are taxed to 50% of our salary...

that a lot... and yet its worth it!

 

[Joos]

My impression of American healthcare can be summarised in Michael Moore's film Sicko: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/

Overpriced, unfair, and elitist. Good if you are rich I suppose. However, only 1% percent of the population is so...

 

[cathou]

First it's not exact that we lost 50% of our pay in taxes. i earn around 32k per year, and i pay around 23% of taxes. But of course we are also taxed 13% each time we buy something, so i guess in the end it might come close to 50%...

Canada health system would not have let you die, that's for sure. we have children hospitals that do everything they could to save child life each day, even if they have a very weak chance of survival. Maybe you would have died because we do a little less experimental treatments, but it wouldnt have cost 80k to your dad...

Canadian dont cross the border to get treatments. When they do, it's because they want to try an experimental procedure not yet available in canada, or because they are wealthy and want to bypass waiting lists. Yes we wait here, but usually, the more endanger your life is, the less you wait. So something not very urgent may let you wait for a while.

for french/uk, i dont really know...

Our perspective of the US heathcare system, at least mine, from what i've heard, it's that it's really effective, but only if you have money. if you dont, they let you die, and heal somebody with money...

 

[R Man]

I would like to put fourth a hypothesis. Now this is an idea, not information so keep that in mind while reading it.

Now we know that poor people often have difficulty in paying for healthcare, and then those that can will have their resources curtailed. Right? But doesn't this lead to suffering for their children, who may loose some educational support and face general restriction of their educational opportunities? This in turn prevents them from ever reaching their full potential and thus they remain poor. If they get ill the cycle will repeat, maybe with drugs and guns thrown in. This leads to a series of social problems that are circular.

This would explain much of why America is the way it is. But its only an idea.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

1. Does Canada's healthcare really suck that bad? Are there canadians coming here for medical purposes?

no the Canadian system is great, sure there are some hang ups, such as emergency rooms but that depends on why you're there. your uncle has no clue about our system and what it covers, you can go to the doctor for anything and any health related concern is answered.

yes it doesn't cover certain things but they aren't health related and are more cosmetic than anything. the people who jump the border are doing so to jump the queue of people in a surgery, once again a non-life threatening one such as acl surgery because they don't want to wait the extra couple of weeks

2. What problems are there with French/U.K. Healthcare? Because our media (except Faux) says mostly good things on it.

no clue not from there

3. What is an outsider's perspective on American healthcare?

i'm not going there without health insurance and frankly i'd hate to live there and get injured

4. Would I have died?

i'd have to say you would be given the same chance you were given when you were born. tho it also depends on where you were born, in Toronto they have sick kids hospital and MacMaster as well, so your chances of survival would have been a lot better considering they are 2 of the best hospitals around

 

[RollForInitiative]

As a Canadian, I can say that the Health system certainly did not fail me when I needed it, nor did it ever cost me anything, and I've been through surgery for a collapsed lung.

 

[forever saturday]

Right, so I really don't give a damn about politics, but since I keep hearing about it:

1. As far as I know, more Americans go to Canada for free drugs than Canadians going to America for faster care. If its not urgent, then you can wait (QED). If it is urgent, you get treatment right away.

2. My dad is a strongly conservative doctor who once told me a horror story about what happens to people under the NHS, but I saw a story from some British web paper (forget which) that said that the story he told was untrue. Brits seem to be happy with the system they have.

3. I think that I would rather live in a system where a being hit by a bus won't risk putting me in massive debt.

4. If you survived in America, you would have lived in Britain as well.

The problem in America is that McCarthyism never really went away. As such, many Americans really still believe that Communists are evil, and that Socialism is little more than a euphemism for the same (its not).

Many Americans are pulling the argument that its bad because Hitler would have done it*. This is wrong because:

1. They are doing the opposite: it is bad, therefore Hitler would like it**.
2. Nazis were Anti-Socialist, and would not have supported this idea anyway.

Its all just stupidity about being "Un-American". Considering world affairs, the hypocricy is mind blowing. Also, the fact that many Americans thing that the pledge of allegiance will make the problem just go away is just pitiful.

* Many people actually believe this, so don't call Godwin's law.
** That, however, is these people pulling Godwin's law.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

Canadian wait times are a little out-of-whack, but if you're in immediate danger you will get treatment. Our doctors are very well-trained and the only problem with our system is that doctors don't get paid as much here as they do in the States, which leads many of them to leave, thus increasing waiting time. I couldn't say what would be wrong with the UK or France, seeing as I've never gotten treatment there. American health care, although not tragically flawed, does leave a lot of people without coverage, and seeing as doctors name their rates, you could not be able to afford life saving surgery. And no, in Canada or Europe you wouldn't have died, in fact if your family doesn't have the cash to kick around, you could have been dead in the States faster than elsewhere.


The strange thing about all of this is that I'm very Conservative, but I disagree with many of the American Republican Party's ideals.

 

[Megacherv]

Our healthcare seems alright, but I'm not entirely sure as I've never been in for anything serious, and I'm apparently covered by BUPA (not the NHS, the UK's standard) as my dad pays for BUPA cover for me and him.

 

[mightybozz]

1. Don't know. I'm Manx (British)
2. There are reports of waiting lists for surgeries, delays etc. But these are far from the norm for most patients. If you consider it a problem (which I don't, as it is inevitable) the latest, expensive drugs for treatments may not be available, depending on your NHS trust's opinion. These decisions are frequently challenged and overruled in court cases. But as I say, this isn't really the point. The limit has to be set somewhere, or else all the money would go to caring for only a few people. If you want the most ridiculously elite healthcare, get your own insurance. If you want good quality healthcare for everything, go for the NHS.

3. Frankly, the US healthcare disgusts me. If you're well-off enough to be able to pay and manage to get the insurance company to pay up, then you're alright. If not, you die. You let rescue workers suffer respiratory illness without treatment because the only people who can give them healthcare are more interested in a profit.

4. NO! You would NOT have died. You would NOT have been aborted. This is a liberal country and we don't deny life saving treatment. The cases of the NHS not paying for drugs are usually cancer patients or similar looking for life-prolonging drugs. Saving a premature baby's life through medical care is a different matter. I was premature too (though nowhere near as early as you) and suffered dehydration problems after birth, necessitating more treatment. It was never suggested that I was a waste of money.

As a law student I can say the following for certain about British healthcare: refusing life-saving treatment does not happen easily.
Frankly these are the lies the US conservatives spread that I hate the most: the idea that the government is some kind of eugenics master looking to purge the weak. Sort your country out.