Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Speaking your language -- 2/3 of public rejecting Obamacare makes them a "few people, and fools?" If you want full agreement and no dissent, try the mirror instead of C-D.
A poll released in July 2012 showed that "most Americans (56%) want to see critics of President Obama's health care law drop efforts to block it and move on to other national issues.
A poll released in July 2012 showed that "most Americans (56%) want to see critics of President Obama's health care law drop efforts to block it and move on to other national issues.
@ Newdixiegirl: for me discussions about Healthcare are part of a larger picture -- what kind of country do we want to live in?
If you ask me if we want to be like Europe -- my response is again "hell, no!". So do many other Americans. In fact it is a small 20-21% of our population, who are liberal, who want to transform America into an European model. These proponents are very loud, and super annoying.
Our country was built from people who rejected European mentality. To be honest, Europe's BS still makes me sick. No wonder I decided to return to US after living there.
If you knew its history, UHC was a Marxist creation, in the open, plain and simple. It represents "to anyone, according to his need." UHC represents a big centralized, iron-fisted Nanny State which dictates what people do with their most precious possession -- health. This is an alien concept for most of us Americans, and we despise it.
Most Europeans and Canadians are content with that, and we understand. Yet, leave them be. But we expect the same, rather than ridiculing, pushing and shoving us to become like them -- a society with a very dark past, and very dark future.
It may be annoying to you that we exist, but believe me, our feelings are reciprocal and more.
No, what annoys me are people, on EITHER side of the political spectrum - on ANY social or political issue - who are SO sure of their (often limited) perspectives that they are determined to reflexively dismiss legitimate points made by the opposing team. I become as irritated by people's distorted opinions in my home country of Canada on issues related to the US as I do by those of people in my adopted country of the United States when it comes to the issue of UHC. And if I had wanted to live in a "nanny state," then what a fool I was to choose to emigrate to the US and to become a citizen!
The nanny state mentality in Europe that you refer to (and I think is a legitimate point, btw) is not borne of a belief in UHC. A country CAN have a good UHC system AND a strong economy. One need not preclude the other. If anything, UHC can help maintain a strong economy. For proof, look to the strong economies of Canada and Australia (neither of which have struggled through the serious downturns of the US or parts of Europe. No housing crisis. No banking collapse or subsequent bailouts to the banks by national governments). Germany is an economic powerhouse. Brazil is one of the fastest-growing economies in the world.
I'm a fervent supporter of UHC as the system that best addresses economic, humanitarian and public health concerns. But I also believe strongly in individual responsibility and rights. So how to amalgamate the two in terms of health care? Ultimately, I think a hybrid system of UHC and private health care is probably the best and most sustainable. And THAT is the kind of system that I think the US (a country that I love) could implement. Very successfully.
@ Newdixiegirl: IMO, you can't detach UHC from the rest of the political and economical structures. UHC is a result of certain policies and decisions elites and countries have made.
Canada is really not a good example. Somewhere here I linked to study that shows we Americans liked our HC better than Canadian liked theirs. Also women's healthcare in US was considerably better in US than Canada.
Your point of marrying UHC with a Capitalist healthcare marketplace is a good point. EU is talking along the same lines as you.
But there is a fundamental problem -- Same people that want the Nanny State have a problem with "profit on the backs of people's health."
HC reform in US is extremely complex. In US, we do have UHC (think Medicare) but it is not full blown, like Canada / EU. Many states also have Medicaid, and all have UHC for children, pregnant women, and very poor / disabled.
So, good or bad or insufficient -- there is a level of UHC in America.
I think non-poor adults, of working age, non-disabled, who are capable of taking care of themselves need to turn to Capitalism, rather than become part of the dependent class of the Nanny State.
If you really looked at the reality, America does have a hybrid system. It is rather the Health marketplace that needs to be reformed, unshackled, un-contrived.
It is absolutely crazy that I can pay cash $ 80 for a doctor's visit, while Insurance rates are $ 200.
When you liberals lose, you never move on. When you lose in elections, you turn into the executive orders. When you lose in courts, you turn to the Senate. You never let go, You push, shove, cry, complain, until you get your way.
It took you 100 years to get Obamacare. You never moved on from previous defeats. You kept fighting. I like that quality very much.
This article from the Cascade Institute effectively debunks the report that the U.S. ranks last:
"A new Commonwealth Fund report is the latest to indict U.S. health care. It pegs the American system dead last in a survey of 11 developed countries. But like virtually every other study that trashes the U.S. health care system, Commonwealth’s rankings rely on questionable assumptions, like giving weight to those systems that treat people equally rather than well. At the same time, Commonwealth ignores the problems that countries with socialized health care systems have actually treating people once they’re sick. And on that metric—that is, actually delivering care to those who need it—the United States is without peer."
just so long as they have enough insurance and/or cash to afford it.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by newdixiegirl
....... snip ........
I'm a fervent supporter of UHC as the system that best addresses economic, humanitarian and public health concerns. But I also believe strongly in individual responsibility and rights. So how to amalgamate the two in terms of health care? Ultimately, I think a hybrid system of UHC and private health care is probably the best and most sustainable. And THAT is the kind of system that I think the US (a country that I love) could implement. Very successfully.
sounds sort of like what I understand Australia's to be......
You have a right to go see a doctor of your choosing.
But not on my dime.
It's your health, pay for it or buy your own insurance.
I'm guessing you don't even pay for your own health care.
No, having insurance doesn't pay for it. Doesn't take much to use up a decades worth of what you pay to the insurance, and then it's what other people pay making up the difference.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
