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.
UK - 63,000,000 people with approximately 242,000 sq km.
US - 314,000,000 people with approximately 9,160,000 sq km.
Is that really apples to apples to you folks?
I have never, ever, understood this argument. In the US, more people would be paying into the system as well. I'm not sure what, if anything, population density has to do with it. I work in health care, and the action is in the big cities. These days, there are fewer and fewer rural hospitals. People are either cared for at home, or in a big teaching hospital.
Imagine if you didn't have to pay more, but less! Everyone is covered.
Unless everyone is paying it makes no difference if everyone is covered or not. How are my premiums going to be lower if they are now going to be covering more people who aren't paying? We know how that will be done, I can take a lower quality of care to cover others who aren't paying.
one of the great drivers for increased medical care cost is innovation. C-pap machines, Lap-bands, mechanical hearts weren't FDA approved just a decade ago. Now these expensive devices are prolonging life and enhancing quality of life, but also adding to premiums.
If the government were to mandate medical care to the standard of 1776, costs would be very low, as would life expectancy.
The government's place is to provide a framework of laws and regulations and protect our rights and freedoms, so that we can have free market where we can buy affordable health care.
There are things government can do to promote affordable health care, and lower the impingements to high costs. Sadly, the only solution that democrats ever envision is a government take over.
Where is "out there"? I live out there, I work out there... I know how it is, I'm well aware that many people choose to sit at home and collect unemployment over making changes in their lives which would allow them to become productive citizens. If you need 99 weeks to find a job you're not looking very hard.
AMERICA HAS LOST MILLIONS OF PERMANENT JOBS. They are not coming back. Never. Gone. No solution.
You haven't studied up on where it works fine everywhere else. I am not surprised at all. It is all about "BLAH BLAH LAZY PEOPLE..." Am I right?
The only place it "works" is in the Scandinavian countries and they'll tell you they've over-leveraged themselves too. Just like all the unions who voted themselves benefits and are now looking at billions in budget shortfalls.
You haven't studied up on where it works fine everywhere else. I am not surprised at all. It is all about "BLAH BLAH LAZY PEOPLE..." Am I right?
I'm going to stop replying to your ignorant statements unless you stop making accusations that you can't back up. I'm in the health care industry, this is my life and I study it all the time.
Who do you think pays for the uninsured now? The taxpayer. It's a lose-lose in the best of times. I would absolutely love affordable health care. It doesn't exist for the middle class.
I agree about how taxpayers (especially property tax, like in Texas) already pay for the uninsured people who flock to the emergency rooms for sore throats, headaches, etc. The way I see it, the health care reform act is attempting to shift the expense to the un-insured (since they would become insured, and start paying at least something) and the health insurance companies.
I remember back when health care was pretty much affordable for everyone (1960s and early 70s). Few doctors back then had malpractice insurance. Indeed, malpractice suits were rare before the 1970s.
One reason for the rise in malpractice claims was simple: more surgeries. Remember, the first coronary bypass surgery was around 1960. Prior to that time people essentially lived, got sick, and died at home. However, in the 1960s more surgerical procedures arose, more people were going to hospitals, and laws began changing (including the definition of negligence, the ability to bring in 'outside experts' to testify, the rise of the doctrine that hospitals could also be liable for mistakes made by doctors and staff, etc).
I well recall a few malpractice suits that hit in the early 1970s, resulting in huge payoffs to the plaintiffs and their attorneys. Success breeds competition and the lawsuits began in earnest. By the 1980s, a doctor would have been insane to not have malpractice insurance, even if he or she never did surgery. People's expectations have changed and they (or their survivors) are ready to file claims for simply not getting well.
A normal doctor's office will have such insurance covering the doctor and staff. I am not sure of the cost, but you know it is very, very high ($20,000 plus per year).
How does a doctor avoid such malpractice claims? One way is to order every conceivable diagnostic tests. My job involves revewing medical documents. Far too often I will see an uninsured person go to the local county hospital complaining of a headache. Back in 'the day' the doctor would have said take two aspirin and call me in the morning.
Now, like as not, said doctor will order a MRI scan of the brain. For what if the doctor told the patient that it was probably just an ordinary headache and go home and take aspirin? What if said person then has a seizure secondary to a brain tumor? Lawsuit. Questions in front of the jury would include "Doctor, isn't one symptom of a rapidly developing brain tumor an aching inside the head? Yes? Well, then why didn't you order a MRI scan of the brain? Oh, you thought it was simply a headache? Well, your negligence caused the death of your patient".
Hence, the MRI scan, which are not cheap (especially 'with contrast'). If the MRI scan does not show anything, they may do x-rays of the cervical spine, to see if there is a problem there. Blood tests are a given. Check the carotid arteries with a sonogram.
Who pays for these tests? Not the uninsured person. Sure, the hospital may send them a bill, which will be ignored since they can't pay it.
No matter. I, the Fort Worth property owner, will pay for it in my property taxes.
Yes, let us just keep things as they are. Whatever is, is best in this best of all possible worlds.
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.
