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.
Would it be possible for a nonresident to get health care in France or any European country with better health care than ours (Netherlands, Germany, etc)?
No, you have to work there and pay into the system like we do social security. They will treat you, of course, but you have to pay full cost which is expensive (though not as much as the US. Nowhere is as expensive as the US.) The US has the costliest health care in the world. Period. It's robbery.
No, you have to work there and pay into the system like we do social security. They will treat you, of course, but you have to pay full cost which is expensive (though not as much as the US. Nowhere is as expensive as the US.) The US has the costliest health care in the world. Period. It's robbery.
Thank you for answering that.
I keep crossing my fingers that one day the U.S. will just stop being stupid and get universal health care. I'm all for a single payer system.
I think eventually we'll get there but I just hope I live to see it.
We don't have universal healthcare because many people especially CEOs of health insurance companies are making BIG bucks off of us. Check out how many hundreds of millions the CEO of your health insurance company is making while you must appeal a claim to cover your emergency surgery!
Have you noticed all the layoffs lately? With layoffs comes a loss of income, and of health care benefits, since health insurance is more often than not tied in to employment. Health care on the open market is too expensive for those who are on unemployment. Nobody wants anything for free. They just don't want to worry about them or their children getting sick and not being able to take them to the doctor. I guess that's an entitlement too, right?
I hope none of you Darwinists ever gets sick or loses your health insurance. You people just dont get it.
Wow, just more name calling?
It certainly does help your failing argument when you call everyone else names.
BTW being out of work doe snot effect the ER's treatment of you.
Not that I support UHC but wouldn't we have to prove that we are citizens or legal residents in order to receive care under such UHC? I doubt that I could utilize Canada's UHC unless I became a tax-paying citizen so the same should be said for illegal immigrants here.
Under our current system of health care, anyone going into an ER gets treated without regard for their citizenship, social status or if they are employed.
I've had an interesting life experience going from being a U.S. trained ED physician, firmly believing in the private system of medicine practiced in the U.S. to making a move to Australia, which has healthcare for all legal residents and in addition an active private system that adds to the baseline system that exists for all.
There are upsides and downsides to all systems, but I have observed that as a society, AU has markedly better penetration of primary care services for all and as a result markedly fewer preventable emergencies. The cost of healthcare in terms of % of GDP is markedly less in AU, and yet the taxes ultimately are about the same.
There are both private and public hospitals; but everyone has basic healthcare. If you do not have private health cover, you may end up waiting 12-18 months to get that gallbladder removed or get that hip replacement -- but it'll still gets done in the public system. If you have private cover, you'll get it done in weeks.
Overall, I believe I'm seeing a kinder, more decent society here when it comes to medical practice.
I was always frustrated as an ED doc in the U.S. when I'd get some 85 year old patient with advanced dementia with sepsis - -the family wanted everything done -- we'd provide advanced care, place on a ventilator, antibiotics, fluids, pressors, central lines, ICU care -- yet the person doesn't even know their own children. We pay 10's of thousands of tax dollar to keep this person in dementia care in U.S. each year, then blow through 10's of thousands/week in hospitalization when they get sick without ever really thinking about it.
In AU, the family isn't given this option (private or public care) -- the doctor advises as to what would be reasonable and people are willing to deal with things in a reasonable way. We give comfort measures, but don't spend 6 figures on someone who is dying and had no preceding quality of life.
There needs to be a realism in the U.S. with healthcare; in that the fancy stuff should be available for those who have private insurance, but a baseline level of care needs to be in place for all; and yes, only to legal residents.
This is how other countries have much better health outcomes than the U.S. for 50% of the cost. This is the basis for how a Michael Moore can produce such a crap film as he did comparing the healthcare in Cuba to that of the U.S. However, once you merge the outcomes of everyone in the society; his film has some truth. This shouldn't be the case.
Having been born and raised as an American; when I first moved to the UK, one of the things that did 'shock' me was how commonly they would stop life-saving treatments once a person was past a set age.
Comfort became the issue, not life saving nor life extending.
I came to understand it though.
Living stateside again, I do see that as a huge problem here.
As I think I posted much earlier in this thread. If each of us expects that the hospitals will immediately spend $1,000,000 on us to treat cancers and ailments; would assume that every person in our nation is going to put that amount of money into the insurance system during our lifetimes.
It simply is not going to happen. We have many people who don't work, they stay at home raising children. We have many people who are subsistence laborers who will never earn that much in their entire lives.
As our system is today, it costs too much.
And what we expect from our system is too much.
Someone must stand up and make a hard choice. Once beyond 65 years of age, nobody gets treatment for 'X' disease. Or anyone who is mentally retarded,....
In general in our society people would riot at the thought of doing this.
It certainly does help your failing argument when you call everyone else names.
BTW being out of work doe snot effect the ER's treatment of you.
Ooops your argument collapsed yet again.
Really.. you can't be serious.
OF course you can get treatment in an ER. It's the law. .t hey have to patch you up ..they cant' just let you lie there and die!! But guess what.. you're goingto get a bill for it. And then when you can't pay the high bill (as we all know an asprin alone in the hospital can cost $40!!!) then what?? Then your stuck with abill and debt in an already tight financial situation (unemployment).
Hm.. and what happens when they give you something for whatever ails you but it's only temporary. Let's say they diagnose your ache or pain as being cancer?? But you don't have insurance, so the hospital isn't going to send you to an oncologist and start you are radiation. They dont' have to..all they have to do is make sure that youa re not immediately dying and patch you up and send you on your way with your diagnosis....
Don't think people are dying from lack of access to healthcare?? Tell that to many cancer patients who are unsinsured who are not getting life saving treatments because they can neither afford it nor havei nsurance to cover it because.. THEY COULDNT AFFORD the high insurance premiums!!! Tell that to anyone who was denied life saving treatments by insurance companies when they ACTUALLY HAD insurance.
We sure as heck can't afford it how with the deficit suddenly tripled. We have maxed out our creit card to foreign lenders.Many be when we get the principal and interest paid offf in 2090.
We sure as heck can't afford it how with the deficit suddenly tripled. We have maxed out our creit card to foreign lenders.Many be when we get the principal and interest paid offf in 2090.
It doesn't have to cost more than what our current system does. A lot of countries have figured out how to implement it at a far lower cost than we do.
If anything, it would be the fiscally wise thing to do with mounting debt.
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.
Really.. you can't be serious.
