McCain's running mate is the Alaskan Governor??!
- Thread starter aurora.
- Start date
almostaskier
Active member
Is anyone watching Mike Huckabee talk about Palin just now? Avoided the experience issue altogether, and trashed "European" ideas about healthcare... Let's check the list for best healthcare:
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
In bold, Europe. Emphasized: United States. Sorry Huckabee...
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
In bold, Europe. Emphasized: United States. Sorry Huckabee...
cottonwoodarmada1651
Active member
Yeah, I'd like to see where that list came from and what data it's based on.
skiminnesota
Active member
just going to point this out,
why is it that foreign leaders come here(MN) to the mayo clinic?
could it be, AMERICA KICKS ASS?
nope, because we suck.....
why is it that foreign leaders come here(MN) to the mayo clinic?
could it be, AMERICA KICKS ASS?
nope, because we suck.....
skiminnesota
Active member
i would also like some stats as far as population of those country's. GDP?
america does alright for itself...
america does alright for itself...
almostaskier
Active member
almostaskier
Active member
Google?
whattheshit
Active member
cia world fact book would give you the answer you're looking for.
Either they're mooching off us or pharmaceuticals are a blight on healthcare.
whattheshit
Active member
that list could be a whole lot different depending on how wealthy you are in each of those countries...certainly the american ranking would be a lot different.
user098123
Active member
Ya but all of the major pharmaceuticals are multinational and have headquarters all over Europe. The pharmaceutical industry is actually MUCH MUCH better in Europe than it is in America. I've worked the last 2 years from Pfizer so I've seen it all firsthand.
Quinny
Active member
If you standardize healthcare, its extremely likely that the costs of both production and innovation go up. But thats okay, its not like they can layoff American workers and move elsewhere to cut costs...oh wait. Ah never mind, we can just give all the unemployed people fatter welfare checks to go with their government subsidized healthcare.
And yes Drew, you're a super-genius. Of the 50 largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, more than 20 of them are located in the US (more than double the next closest country)...and the only thing all of them contribute to medical science is Viagra. Clearly I am no match for your incredible tact, vast intelligence, and outstanding wit.
And yes Drew, you're a super-genius. Of the 50 largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, more than 20 of them are located in the US (more than double the next closest country)...and the only thing all of them contribute to medical science is Viagra. Clearly I am no match for your incredible tact, vast intelligence, and outstanding wit.
whattheshit
Active member
LMAO!
multi-illionaire
Member
BigMeech621
Active member
She looks like the librarian from a Van Halen video!
almostaskier
Active member
They speak french sorta don't they? Close enough.
Dude, we're pretty bad.
almostaskier
Active member
Have you been there? Why would it not be better? If you have healthcare, you're lucky...
coolhandluke
Active member
my middle east policy:
Campeador
Active member
I lived 7 years in Chile, and I've been to Andorra briefly. Dominica is on my list of places I want to visit, it looks real nice.
My dad's cousin is one of the top neurologists at Clinica Las Condes in Santiago. Where do you think he studied medicine? The United States. Which country developed the majority of the medicines as well as the techniques used in that hospital? The United States.
Its a fine hospital but I wouldn't want to get caught up with a fatal disease there. Where do people with money go when they have a serious illness? The U.S.
But I now understand why the U.S. is rated so badly. It has a lot to do with the doctor-population ratio. With all the bullshit legalities that U.S. doctors have to go through, it no wonder less and less people are committing themselves to 12 years of school to become a doctor. Being a doctor in the U.S. is easily one of the most stressful jobs imaginable.
My dad's cousin is one of the top neurologists at Clinica Las Condes in Santiago. Where do you think he studied medicine? The United States. Which country developed the majority of the medicines as well as the techniques used in that hospital? The United States.
Its a fine hospital but I wouldn't want to get caught up with a fatal disease there. Where do people with money go when they have a serious illness? The U.S.
But I now understand why the U.S. is rated so badly. It has a lot to do with the doctor-population ratio. With all the bullshit legalities that U.S. doctors have to go through, it no wonder less and less people are committing themselves to 12 years of school to become a doctor. Being a doctor in the U.S. is easily one of the most stressful jobs imaginable.
Quinny
Active member
Okay then Drew. I'll give you a quick lesson in economics.
Creating a comprehensive social healthcare system costs money. This money pays for the benefits bestowed onto everyone, from hospital bills to the price of medicine. Now the majority of people with any concept of money will wonder where the cash comes from to make this work.
Probably the biggest concern among people who want to socialize healthcare is the price of prescription drugs. They argue that prices are too high. The obvious solution if the government chooses to socialize the system is to enforce something called a price ceiling. The price ceiling would push the market below the equilibrium where supply and demand meet. In essence, this would lower the price pharmaceutical companies could charge. That change in price would shrink the profit margin of producing drugs and result in companies simply producing less in order to stay profitable.
Lets also keep in mind the very concept of a socialized healthcare system is to allow everyone access to the same treatment. People who would not normally have the ability to get something would, theoretically, be able to obtain it. This would cause the demand for drugs to increase in order to meet the needs of the system.
Now what happens when the supply from the pharmaceutical companies' gets smaller and the demand from the public gets larger? You have a shortage. The result being not enough medicine/equipment/etc to match the need of the 300 million or so Americans.
Such conditions would make it extremely difficult for the pharmaceutical industry. The 30 or so large companies in that industry would have a much harder time being competitive, both domestically and in the global market. The natural reaction to a shortage is to raise prices, but that cannot happen under a price ceiling. You would then see many of the companies either pull up stakes and move to another country where conditions to produce are easier, or you would see them exit the industry entirely. I would imagine you can grasp the number of problems either of those would cause.
Another thing to consider about such healthcare implementation is that Obama's ideas about taxes will undoubtedly affect the large companies in pharmaceuticals, further applying stress to the industry. Ultimately a price ceiling is only a temporary fix for the market, and any kind of sustaining principle with create more problems than it will fix.
That, good sir, is the connection you are looking for.
Creating a comprehensive social healthcare system costs money. This money pays for the benefits bestowed onto everyone, from hospital bills to the price of medicine. Now the majority of people with any concept of money will wonder where the cash comes from to make this work.
Probably the biggest concern among people who want to socialize healthcare is the price of prescription drugs. They argue that prices are too high. The obvious solution if the government chooses to socialize the system is to enforce something called a price ceiling. The price ceiling would push the market below the equilibrium where supply and demand meet. In essence, this would lower the price pharmaceutical companies could charge. That change in price would shrink the profit margin of producing drugs and result in companies simply producing less in order to stay profitable.
Lets also keep in mind the very concept of a socialized healthcare system is to allow everyone access to the same treatment. People who would not normally have the ability to get something would, theoretically, be able to obtain it. This would cause the demand for drugs to increase in order to meet the needs of the system.
Now what happens when the supply from the pharmaceutical companies' gets smaller and the demand from the public gets larger? You have a shortage. The result being not enough medicine/equipment/etc to match the need of the 300 million or so Americans.
Such conditions would make it extremely difficult for the pharmaceutical industry. The 30 or so large companies in that industry would have a much harder time being competitive, both domestically and in the global market. The natural reaction to a shortage is to raise prices, but that cannot happen under a price ceiling. You would then see many of the companies either pull up stakes and move to another country where conditions to produce are easier, or you would see them exit the industry entirely. I would imagine you can grasp the number of problems either of those would cause.
Another thing to consider about such healthcare implementation is that Obama's ideas about taxes will undoubtedly affect the large companies in pharmaceuticals, further applying stress to the industry. Ultimately a price ceiling is only a temporary fix for the market, and any kind of sustaining principle with create more problems than it will fix.
That, good sir, is the connection you are looking for.
almostaskier
Active member
Suddenly, the pharmaceutical companies would find themselves in a strange, parallel universe. One where running a profit on the illness of others is no longer the modus operandi, one where the health of the population is of bigger importance than their bottom line, one where their product must be streamlined and effective, instead of a gimmick and overly expensive.
Suddenly, the pharmaceuticals will remember what they actually are meant to do: cure people of disease, not take their money as they die. If that doesn't awaken any sort of altruistic thoughts, their business wasn't on the best gameplan to actually help people.
Suddenly, the pharmaceuticals will remember what they actually are meant to do: cure people of disease, not take their money as they die. If that doesn't awaken any sort of altruistic thoughts, their business wasn't on the best gameplan to actually help people.
Quinny
Active member
Great...so what happens when the money runs out?
Medicine isn't conjured out of thin air. It is an expensive process regardless of whether people think it's the "right" thing to do or not. The world does not operate on naive principle that everybody does everything out of the goodness of their heart.
And I suppose you think we can build a kidney dialysis machine simply out of goodwill and rainbows?
Medicine isn't conjured out of thin air. It is an expensive process regardless of whether people think it's the "right" thing to do or not. The world does not operate on naive principle that everybody does everything out of the goodness of their heart.
And I suppose you think we can build a kidney dialysis machine simply out of goodwill and rainbows?
Shpadoinkle
Active member
Medicine is a dirty world. Dirty old men taking Viagra don't have to pay for those pills, yet a lot of women who want to practice safe sex have to pay for birth control.
[sarcasm]You know how we have "Big Oil"? Well, we'll call this one "Big Dick".[/sarcasm]
[sarcasm]You know how we have "Big Oil"? Well, we'll call this one "Big Dick".[/sarcasm]
almostaskier
Active member
Why would the money run out? Taxing the upper class more, continued taxation elsewhere, cutting deleterious spending, reworking spending to focus less on defense and more on healthcare...
We're the richest nation in the world, if anyone should have had universal healthcare, it should have been us. The money doesn't just "run out" unless we don't care.
We're the richest nation in the world, if anyone should have had universal healthcare, it should have been us. The money doesn't just "run out" unless we don't care.
Quinny
Active member
Are you kidding? The money runs out because companies cannot sustain themselves by finishing in the red every year. They have to make a profit or they cannot exist.
So then are you saying companies like Pfizer should get government handouts to pay for their losses? Thats absolutely ludicrous. By doing that you not only burn a hole on America's pocket, you also kill any incentive for the industry to perform better (let alone be competitive).
So then are you saying companies like Pfizer should get government handouts to pay for their losses? Thats absolutely ludicrous. By doing that you not only burn a hole on America's pocket, you also kill any incentive for the industry to perform better (let alone be competitive).
almostaskier
Active member
Curing disease must have lost its appeal as an incentive.
It only burns a hole in the pocket if the flame already burning is never put out. We could curb spending other places and be able to pay for universal healthcare.
http://www.frenchentree.com/fe-health/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=197
The french use taxes to pay for healthcare, as do the swedes. Personally, i'd like my taxes to pay for something that helps everyone, and not the current war, for example.
It only burns a hole in the pocket if the flame already burning is never put out. We could curb spending other places and be able to pay for universal healthcare.
http://www.frenchentree.com/fe-health/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=197
The french use taxes to pay for healthcare, as do the swedes. Personally, i'd like my taxes to pay for something that helps everyone, and not the current war, for example.
SteezyasPie
Active member
and as we all know, nobody wants more lawyers
Quinny
Active member
Do you have absolutely no concept of how other human beings think? I'm serious.
I really am having a hard time grasping the notion that you think everyone is selfless. This is not an abstract concept Patty, this is basic human instinct. People aren't going to do things unless they get something out of it. Do you think all the investors and shareholders that have put money into these companies are doing so purely because they want to cure disease? The most common reason people invest in this stuff is because there are potential gains to be had.
Everybody has their own motives for investing. The company itself is obligated to perform well as a business in order to profit the people who gave money or work (in order to enable them to cure diseases) and to maintain a sustainable model (to help enable them to cure diseases in the future).
People are selfish Patty. I understand why you think we as a society need to pay for the healthcare of a single mom raising two kids. However, we would also have to pay the medical bills for the twenty-something single guy who thought it might be a good idea to get shit-house drunk, go for a drive without his seatbelt, and plow into a tree.
You mention countries in Europe and their social healthcare models. Can you also mention the rising costs and the rising number of patients that are straining these systems? Can you imagine what kind of stress such a model would face in a country that is 5 times the population of France, 9 times the population of Canada, and 33 time the population of Sweden?
Who going to pay for it Patty? You expect just the wealthy to pay for the 300 million people in this country? Now how can you tell me that is not selfish? The reality is that everybody would have to pay for it, not just the rich. Costs would go up across the board regardless if you're a patient, doctor, taxpayer, scientist, or a businessmen.
I really am having a hard time grasping the notion that you think everyone is selfless. This is not an abstract concept Patty, this is basic human instinct. People aren't going to do things unless they get something out of it. Do you think all the investors and shareholders that have put money into these companies are doing so purely because they want to cure disease? The most common reason people invest in this stuff is because there are potential gains to be had.
Everybody has their own motives for investing. The company itself is obligated to perform well as a business in order to profit the people who gave money or work (in order to enable them to cure diseases) and to maintain a sustainable model (to help enable them to cure diseases in the future).
People are selfish Patty. I understand why you think we as a society need to pay for the healthcare of a single mom raising two kids. However, we would also have to pay the medical bills for the twenty-something single guy who thought it might be a good idea to get shit-house drunk, go for a drive without his seatbelt, and plow into a tree.
You mention countries in Europe and their social healthcare models. Can you also mention the rising costs and the rising number of patients that are straining these systems? Can you imagine what kind of stress such a model would face in a country that is 5 times the population of France, 9 times the population of Canada, and 33 time the population of Sweden?
Who going to pay for it Patty? You expect just the wealthy to pay for the 300 million people in this country? Now how can you tell me that is not selfish? The reality is that everybody would have to pay for it, not just the rich. Costs would go up across the board regardless if you're a patient, doctor, taxpayer, scientist, or a businessmen.
OneLove_skier
Active member
MILF MILF
almostaskier
Active member
Well, I'm not really arguing from a perspective that it will change the way I'd like it to. Trust me, I know that people, and especially the pharmaceuticals, are looking out for number one, end of story.
What I don't want to do is justify that way of working simply because that's the way it is already. I mean, you just said it: it's a selfish business. I'd like to think that there's a better way to run health care than depend on privately owned companies whose final leitmotiv is to benefit its investors. The way I see it, that's the exact opposite of the way it should work. Curing disease shouldn't be a selfish endeavor.
So, I'm not saying that suddenly, these people will be the example of altruism. I'm not gullible. I guess my responses are more from the jaded, disillusioned me, from what I think it should be. I don't hold an illusion that is that way, nor that it will be in my lifetime. I wish healthcare were simply a venture into helping people, and not a way to run a profit. Hell, in a blind utopia, I'd see people being happy to give up their pharmaceutical business, since everyone is healthy and disease has been crushed.
What I do think is that, however twisted the system may still remain, however selfish people will continue to be, there are better ways to alleviate even some of ingrained injustice of health care in this country. And I believe that European models have shown that socialized healthcare, even though it is an economic burden, is a burden worth carrying.
I for one would rather have deficit from socialized health care than from spending on a war. It's like night and day.
No, I don't think the the rich would pay for all of it. Like I said, everyone would still pay taxes, everyone would pay for it, and that means the rich too. They sure don't need any more tax breaks, and no one needs 7 mansions or a 300 000 dollar dress. That kind of excess is simply perverted. I believe there should be a bare minimum vitale for people, especially in health. Education is another, but to be the richest nation in the world and have one of the unhealthiest populations in the world is really sad.
Sure, it would be a tough transition, sure there'd be sacrifices and hardships, and sure, some really rich white guy might lose a zero to his 8 figure salary. But if that means that all Americans can rest assured to be cared for in sickness, that people of all ages and social standing has access to the same treatment, that's a step forward for all, a step backward for some. We would be coming together as a country, though. E pluribus unum? Not right now.
So yeah, I know you're right about how things work. I don't like it, though.
What I don't want to do is justify that way of working simply because that's the way it is already. I mean, you just said it: it's a selfish business. I'd like to think that there's a better way to run health care than depend on privately owned companies whose final leitmotiv is to benefit its investors. The way I see it, that's the exact opposite of the way it should work. Curing disease shouldn't be a selfish endeavor.
So, I'm not saying that suddenly, these people will be the example of altruism. I'm not gullible. I guess my responses are more from the jaded, disillusioned me, from what I think it should be. I don't hold an illusion that is that way, nor that it will be in my lifetime. I wish healthcare were simply a venture into helping people, and not a way to run a profit. Hell, in a blind utopia, I'd see people being happy to give up their pharmaceutical business, since everyone is healthy and disease has been crushed.
What I do think is that, however twisted the system may still remain, however selfish people will continue to be, there are better ways to alleviate even some of ingrained injustice of health care in this country. And I believe that European models have shown that socialized healthcare, even though it is an economic burden, is a burden worth carrying.
I for one would rather have deficit from socialized health care than from spending on a war. It's like night and day.
No, I don't think the the rich would pay for all of it. Like I said, everyone would still pay taxes, everyone would pay for it, and that means the rich too. They sure don't need any more tax breaks, and no one needs 7 mansions or a 300 000 dollar dress. That kind of excess is simply perverted. I believe there should be a bare minimum vitale for people, especially in health. Education is another, but to be the richest nation in the world and have one of the unhealthiest populations in the world is really sad.
Sure, it would be a tough transition, sure there'd be sacrifices and hardships, and sure, some really rich white guy might lose a zero to his 8 figure salary. But if that means that all Americans can rest assured to be cared for in sickness, that people of all ages and social standing has access to the same treatment, that's a step forward for all, a step backward for some. We would be coming together as a country, though. E pluribus unum? Not right now.
So yeah, I know you're right about how things work. I don't like it, though.
Campeador
Active member
Those European models are a joke. The system in the UK is disgraceful, anyone with any money opts for insurance because the socialized system is worthless. The system isn't much better in Sweden and Germany is a joke, they don't even have enough doctors. They are experiencing what is known as a "brain drain" meaning that doctors and other medical professionals are leaving the country in record numbers to find work elsewhere. The goal being to earn a salary they deserve and not the shit pay the bureaucracies decide to pay them.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,399537,00.html
so much for your glorified European models
There's a simple principle in economics that you fail to understand, incentives matter.
And personally, I don't want socialized medicine. Just because you're a citizen of a country does not entitle you to have free health care from the government. The last thing I want is to be paying the majority of my salary in taxes to go to funding the healthcare of every 6 chicano kids every mexican woman pops out over here after she sneaks across the border. Nor do I want to pay for the heart surgeries of the gross amount of morbidly obese people in this country. Health care is not a government issue, despite what you high and mighty Canadians think about your great quality system (the definition of quality here being open to debate). All the American poor should just go to Canada and use your system, everyone's entitled to health care right?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,399537,00.html
so much for your glorified European models
There's a simple principle in economics that you fail to understand, incentives matter.
And personally, I don't want socialized medicine. Just because you're a citizen of a country does not entitle you to have free health care from the government. The last thing I want is to be paying the majority of my salary in taxes to go to funding the healthcare of every 6 chicano kids every mexican woman pops out over here after she sneaks across the border. Nor do I want to pay for the heart surgeries of the gross amount of morbidly obese people in this country. Health care is not a government issue, despite what you high and mighty Canadians think about your great quality system (the definition of quality here being open to debate). All the American poor should just go to Canada and use your system, everyone's entitled to health care right?
prontocuts.com
Active member
lol at all the pictures of people that arent sarah palin that people think are her
Campeador
Active member
This is a brilliant piece on socialized medicine from the "Stuff Whit People Love" blog.
Free Healthcare
In spite of having access to the best health insurance and fanciest
hospitals, white people are passionate about the idea of socialized
medicine. So much so that they have memorized statistics and examples
of how for-profit medicine has destroyed the United States.
But before you can exploit this information for personal gain, it’s
important that you understand why white people are so in love with free
health care.
The first and most obvious reason is “they have it Europe.” White
people love all things European, this especially true of things that
are unavailable in the United States (Rare Beers, Absinthe, legal
marijuana, prostitution, soccer). The fact that it’s available in
Canada isn’t really that impressive, but it does contribute to their
willingness to threaten to move there.
These desires were only heightened in 2007 when Michael Moore
released “Sicko,” a documentary that contrasts the health care industry
in the United States with that of Canada, France and Cuba. As a general
rule of thumb, white people are always extra passionate about issues
that have been the subject of a Moore documentary. As a test, ask them
about 9/11, Gun Control, or Health Care and then say “where did you get
that information?” You will not be surprised at the results.
But the secret reason why all white people love socialized medicine
is that they all love the idea of receiving health care without having
a full-time job. This would allow them to work as a freelance
designer/consultant/copywriter/photographer/blogger, open their own
bookstore, stay at home with their kids, or be a part of an Internet
start-up without having to worry about a benefits package. Though many
of them would never follow this path, they appreciate having the option.
If you need to impress a white person, merely mention how you got
hurt on a recent trip Canada/England/Sweden and though you were a
foreigner you received excellent and free health care. They will be
very impressed and likely tell you about how powerful drug and health
care lobbies are destroying everything.
Though their passion for national health care runs deep, it is
important to remember that white people are most in favor of it when
they are healthy. They love the idea of everyone have equal access to
the resources that will keep them alive, that is until they have to
wait in line for an MRI.
This is very similar to the way that white people express their support for public schools when they don’t have children.
Free Healthcare
In spite of having access to the best health insurance and fanciest
hospitals, white people are passionate about the idea of socialized
medicine. So much so that they have memorized statistics and examples
of how for-profit medicine has destroyed the United States.
But before you can exploit this information for personal gain, it’s
important that you understand why white people are so in love with free
health care.
The first and most obvious reason is “they have it Europe.” White
people love all things European, this especially true of things that
are unavailable in the United States (Rare Beers, Absinthe, legal
marijuana, prostitution, soccer). The fact that it’s available in
Canada isn’t really that impressive, but it does contribute to their
willingness to threaten to move there.
These desires were only heightened in 2007 when Michael Moore
released “Sicko,” a documentary that contrasts the health care industry
in the United States with that of Canada, France and Cuba. As a general
rule of thumb, white people are always extra passionate about issues
that have been the subject of a Moore documentary. As a test, ask them
about 9/11, Gun Control, or Health Care and then say “where did you get
that information?” You will not be surprised at the results.
But the secret reason why all white people love socialized medicine
is that they all love the idea of receiving health care without having
a full-time job. This would allow them to work as a freelance
designer/consultant/copywriter/photographer/blogger, open their own
bookstore, stay at home with their kids, or be a part of an Internet
start-up without having to worry about a benefits package. Though many
of them would never follow this path, they appreciate having the option.
If you need to impress a white person, merely mention how you got
hurt on a recent trip Canada/England/Sweden and though you were a
foreigner you received excellent and free health care. They will be
very impressed and likely tell you about how powerful drug and health
care lobbies are destroying everything.
Though their passion for national health care runs deep, it is
important to remember that white people are most in favor of it when
they are healthy. They love the idea of everyone have equal access to
the resources that will keep them alive, that is until they have to
wait in line for an MRI.
This is very similar to the way that white people express their support for public schools when they don’t have children.
almostaskier
Active member
Except, I was born in Europe, raised in Europe, had health concerns in Europe, was treated in Europe, enjoyed socialized health care in Europe and felt that it was a good thing.
I went through the French system and the Swedish system. Both were great. Cheap orthodontia (free in Sweden), cheap fix after i tore my ACL in France, great doctors, allergic reaction treatment.
My experience is this. In France, I could go to a clinic and get stitches for various wounds and pay little. In Sweden I could do the same and pay nothing until 18, then little. In the USA, my parent's health insurance saved a big financial mess when 4 stitches was rounded to 320 bucks in treatment. Without insurance, well, that'd be a big problem.
I don't think it should be or will be 100% free. It isn't that way in Sweden past a certain age. But it should be affordable to everyone.
I went through the French system and the Swedish system. Both were great. Cheap orthodontia (free in Sweden), cheap fix after i tore my ACL in France, great doctors, allergic reaction treatment.
My experience is this. In France, I could go to a clinic and get stitches for various wounds and pay little. In Sweden I could do the same and pay nothing until 18, then little. In the USA, my parent's health insurance saved a big financial mess when 4 stitches was rounded to 320 bucks in treatment. Without insurance, well, that'd be a big problem.
I don't think it should be or will be 100% free. It isn't that way in Sweden past a certain age. But it should be affordable to everyone.
almostaskier
Active member
Oh, and that article further exacerbates the idea that healthcare shouldn't be about running a profit. But that's utopian, I know.
almostaskier
Active member
And I'm not Canadian. I'm French and American.
Oh, you brash, arrogant, surrender-monkey.
/jokes.
/jokes.
Quinny
Active member
I understand your idea for the "greater good" for everyone with concerns to healthcare, but that "greater good" goes beyond simple hospital bills and ventures into personal lifestyle.
Some people are more prone to getting hurt or sick than others. Take yourself for example, you've had stitches multiple times and torn a knee ligament...you're more prone to that as someone that skateboards and likes to huck of shit on a pair of skis.
Even if you're not in an upper tax bracket, there is great potential that people will pay into it more and get less out of it in order to compensate for the people who choose a more "risky" lifestyle. What's to stop anyone from lobbying more restrictions on what we can and can't do with concern to personal safety? ...Particularly in this day and age when lawsuits are a frequent occurrence.
Some people are more prone to getting hurt or sick than others. Take yourself for example, you've had stitches multiple times and torn a knee ligament...you're more prone to that as someone that skateboards and likes to huck of shit on a pair of skis.
Even if you're not in an upper tax bracket, there is great potential that people will pay into it more and get less out of it in order to compensate for the people who choose a more "risky" lifestyle. What's to stop anyone from lobbying more restrictions on what we can and can't do with concern to personal safety? ...Particularly in this day and age when lawsuits are a frequent occurrence.