Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 10-23-2013, 12:08 AM
 
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,828,610 times
Reputation: 6438

Advertisements

National health care hasn't worked in any other country, so why should the USA be any different?

Let's face it. We can't have national health care because it would be an utter failure. We have no idea how to run it, nor could we. We just don't have what it takes to make it work. Canada, Japan, Germany, Britain and France. They have it. And you know what happened to their societies, right? Complete and uttter chaos. Anarchy. War in the streets. The gibbering maniacal mumblings of crazed social welfare victims litters the air.

But America, we got it covered. We have some of the most advanced care in the world. If you can get into the system, that is. Otherwise, you're dead. Or you might wish you were dead. So, here's to America. The land where we don't need that national health care crap, because, hey, we're better than that. Our system is much better than anyone else's, and so cheap, too.

People will tell you, "OH!! But it's rationed!" "THAT SUCKS!!!! MAN!!!!" Yeah, it is rationed. Yeah, and sometimes, there ain't enough to go around so everyone can get everything they ever want - or need. But you do get some. Everybody gets some. You don't get turned away. "Plan? What plan? Oh sorry, we don't service you, go across town." Imagine never having to hear that, again.

It's pretty obvious we can't handle it,though. Just like every other country that ever tried.

 
Old 10-23-2013, 12:12 AM
 
6,073 posts, read 4,747,738 times
Reputation: 2635
you weren't kidding when you said you knew a thing or two about trolling.

it was really tough for me to "get into the system." I got one of those pesky jobby things. but you're right. I should sacrifice so my neighbor can have "some." especially if that neighbor chooses not to work, or provide anything for themselves. we must lift up the parasites.
 
Old 10-23-2013, 12:18 AM
 
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,828,610 times
Reputation: 6438
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionsgators View Post
you weren't kidding when you said you knew a thing or two about trolling.

it was really tough for me to "get into the system." I got one of those pesky jobby things. but you're right. I should sacrifice so my neighbor can have "some." especially if that neighbor chooses not to work, or provide anything for themselves. we must lift up the parasites.
While lifting up the majority who don't. I hear you, brother. Glad we see this eye to eye.
 
Old 10-23-2013, 01:28 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,647 posts, read 26,366,979 times
Reputation: 12648
Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Ford View Post
National health care hasn't worked in any other country, so why should the USA be any different?

Let's face it. We can't have national health care because it would be an utter failure. We have no idea how to run it, nor could we. We just don't have what it takes to make it work. Canada, Japan, Germany, Britain and France. They have it. And you know what happened to their societies, right? Complete and uttter chaos. Anarchy. War in the streets. The gibbering maniacal mumblings of crazed social welfare victims litters the air.

But America, we got it covered. We have some of the most advanced care in the world. If you can get into the system, that is. Otherwise, you're dead. Or you might wish you were dead. So, here's to America. The land where we don't need that national health care crap, because, hey, we're better than that. Our system is much better than anyone else's, and so cheap, too.

People will tell you, "OH!! But it's rationed!" "THAT SUCKS!!!! MAN!!!!" Yeah, it is rationed. Yeah, and sometimes, there ain't enough to go around so everyone can get everything they ever want - or need. But you do get some. Everybody gets some. You don't get turned away. "Plan? What plan? Oh sorry, we don't service you, go across town." Imagine never having to hear that, again.

It's pretty obvious we can't handle it,though. Just like every other country that ever tried.

The US is not really different.

We have what most other developed countries have in a hybrid public-private healthcare system.

In almost every case, those nations that provide universal healthcare also permit private healthcare plans to make up for the inadequacies of the government-run system.

Moreover, as a percentage of total government spending, Slovakia and Switzerland are the only developed nations that spend more on government-run healthcare than the US and only four other governments spend more per capita.

Public Health Spending % of government spending statistics - countries compared - Health data on NationMaster

Per capita government expenditure on health in international dollars statistics - countries compared - NationMaster


In the US, private expenditures for healthcare are 55% of total and comparable to Greece at 47% and Switzerland at 42%.

Even Australia and Canada have private expenditures for healthcare in excess of 30% of the total cost.

Private expenditure on health as % of total expenditure on health statistics - countries compared - Nationmaster


So do you propose the federal government spend more on public healthcare and the private sector less?

If so, for what purpose?
 
Old 10-24-2013, 03:11 AM
 
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,828,610 times
Reputation: 6438
Nah, I posted this because I got tired of watching people on this forum keep saying America can't do what other countries obviously can handle. I get tired of people downing the USA.

I guess we just let France kick our butt, then.
 
Old 10-26-2013, 01:14 PM
 
13,005 posts, read 18,898,097 times
Reputation: 9251
Why, other than institutional rigidity and congressional corruption, can't the US adopt a system that has actually worked in other countries? I know we prefer inches and pounds instead of the SI system all other nations use, but perpetuation of medicine for profit is hurting the country. And no, Obamacare won't end it.
 
Old 10-26-2013, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,080 posts, read 14,319,224 times
Reputation: 9789
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
The US is not really different.

We have what most other developed countries have in a hybrid public-private healthcare system.

In almost every case, those nations that provide universal healthcare also permit private healthcare plans to make up for the inadequacies of the government-run system.

Moreover, as a percentage of total government spending, Slovakia and Switzerland are the only developed nations that spend more on government-run healthcare than the US and only four other governments spend more per capita.

Public Health Spending % of government spending statistics - countries compared - Health data on NationMaster

Per capita government expenditure on health in international dollars statistics - countries compared - NationMaster


In the US, private expenditures for healthcare are 55% of total and comparable to Greece at 47% and Switzerland at 42%.

Even Australia and Canada have private expenditures for healthcare in excess of 30% of the total cost.

Private expenditure on health as % of total expenditure on health statistics - countries compared - Nationmaster


So do you propose the federal government spend more on public healthcare and the private sector less?

If so, for what purpose?
Inadequacies? Not quite.
I have private insurance through my job. It covers things like eyeglasses, dental, private hospital rooms, ambulance, therapeutic massage, etc.
It doesn't really speak to medical inadequacies, but more like health frills.
 
Old 10-26-2013, 03:53 PM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,677,756 times
Reputation: 22474
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
The US is not really different.

We have what most other developed countries have in a hybrid public-private healthcare system.

In almost every case, those nations that provide universal healthcare also permit private healthcare plans to make up for the inadequacies of the government-run system.

Moreover, as a percentage of total government spending, Slovakia and Switzerland are the only developed nations that spend more on government-run healthcare than the US and only four other governments spend more per capita.

Public Health Spending % of government spending statistics - countries compared - Health data on NationMaster

Per capita government expenditure on health in international dollars statistics - countries compared - NationMaster


In the US, private expenditures for healthcare are 55% of total and comparable to Greece at 47% and Switzerland at 42%.

Even Australia and Canada have private expenditures for healthcare in excess of 30% of the total cost.

Private expenditure on health as % of total expenditure on health statistics - countries compared - Nationmaster


So do you propose the federal government spend more on public healthcare and the private sector less?

If so, for what purpose?
True. A German woman was telling me that in her country, everyone gets basic coverage, but the well-off people have something much better.

Since the taxes are high, only the rich can afford health insurance and that allows them to have much shorter wait times when seeing doctors. Everyone else has to sit in waiting rooms filled with people and wait even 8 hours to see a doctor.

Here in the USA, we have more options. Even average wage people can find doctors who have short wait times.
 
Old 10-26-2013, 03:54 PM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,677,756 times
Reputation: 22474
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz View Post
Inadequacies? Not quite.
I have private insurance through my job. It covers things like eyeglasses, dental, private hospital rooms, ambulance, therapeutic massage, etc.
It doesn't really speak to medical inadequacies, but more like health frills.
Well that doesn't sound very fair. You mean the less-than-elite don't get private hospital rooms? Here private health rooms are the norm, even for the welfare recipients on Medicaid. Hospital wards of many people are a thing of the past here -- for everyone.
 
Old 10-26-2013, 04:11 PM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,080 posts, read 14,319,224 times
Reputation: 9789
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Well that doesn't sound very fair. You mean the less-than-elite don't get private hospital rooms? Here private health rooms are the norm, even for the welfare recipients on Medicaid. Hospital wards of many people are a thing of the past here -- for everyone.
It sounds perfectly fair to me. Maybe it's just one of the many reasons your medical costs are totally out of control.
Read it and weep.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...are-ludicrous/
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top