Medicare-for-all' means long waits for poor care, and Americans won't go for it once they learn thes

We know it happens. And I can assure you that it has nothing to do with money. It did 30 years ago, but today our private hospitals are measurably worse than our public hospitals (which are necessarily better since they are not profit driven, and are tasked with teaching the next generation of medical students ... ergo staffed by Professors and having all the latest equipment). Today, those who insist on paying for private health insurance are a certain 'type', not a certain socio-economic group. I know someone who barely afford it, but insists on having insurance for every quack therapy going .. because she can't get through a week without talking to some reflexologist or herbalist about herself. Some working class families think it makes them fancy to have their babies at private hospitals, because they think like primitives. You get the drift. And I guarantee that all people who care about their health more than they care about having a private freaking hospital room, use the public system. Regardless of how wealthy they are.

 

So misinformed. We have Americans visit here and marvel at the standard of our healthcare. Go to YT and watch a few doco series based on the UK's national health system (the ones set in public hospitals). You will find comment after comment from Americans saying they wish your system was even half as good as the UK one. Literally, hundreds of comments with every video. And these are ordinary working hospitals, sometimes in lower-socioeconomic areas. They are not fake set ups.

 

Sure thing. The solution is public health.

 

No, they're quite used to it.

And they're used to not having any choice (other than the one their bosses make for them).

And they're used to paying twice as much as anyone else to be treated this way too!

And they're used to the byzantine morass of co pays, deductibles, caps and pre existing conditions (which the Republcians are trying to bring back).

And they were used to being the only first world country where people have to declare bankrupcy over medical bills.

And the polls say that the majority of us are tired of it, even if the Trump crowd would rather go on paying a lot more to get less.


Oh, and what makes something that the advanced countries have had for half a century or more "pie in the sky"?

 

This is the real puzzler. CLEARLY, it's far more efficient and effective to have public healthcare.

Are we to assume that Americans can't deal with the realities of equality of care (ie, shared hospital rooms)? And if not, why not? Is there still some kind of primitivism at work ... you know "I paid, so I must be better than you".

 

They do?

 

So there is a wait so that's worse not better

so you pay for it anyway what's the difference is whether you pay for it out of pocket or you pay for it as you need it?

So the reason you pay for treatment out-of-pocket is vanity? That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

Yeah I don't believe you. The private hospitals are probably superior quality. They wouldn't stay in business otherwise. Whether it be you don't have to wait or the care they provide because again why would anyone pay money for something that can get without paying money unless there's something they could get without paying money is substandard.

You can insist on this baloney till The sun Burns out, I don't believe you.

So you don't know how infant mortality is defined differently so you have no idea thanks for playing.

 

1) we wait only when we CAN wait (ie, non-essential treatment). we never wait in emergencies.
2) we pay a tax levy significantly smaller than health insurance premiums.
3) yes, people pay for private treatment because they want a 'private doctor' and a 'private room' - seriously. I know it's bizarre, but it's true.
4) no, private hospitals are not better in this country. many are considerably worse, in fact. public hospitals are not for profit, and so can afford to spend up big on the latest equipment and the best personnel. do you understand the link between profit driven enterprise and reduction in quality/service? staff ratios, the purchase of used equipment (almost always purchased from our public hospitals, which constantly upgrade), etc etc?
5) google is your friend - on infant and maternal mortality rates around the world. once again, mortality means death. bizarre that you think it could mean something else in a medical context.

 

Interesting. Not everyone needs public health. Only those who are currently under-insured or without insurance need public health. Why not figure a solution to their problem instead of creating a whole set of new problems for everyone else?

 

Why have that problem in the first place? The more advanced nations of the First World gave up that crap decades ago.

 

If you have to wait it's still shity service.

if you just paid for the treatment you needed you would probably pay significantly less than you do now. Comparing it to a private eyes version of socialism is not a very good comparison.

I don't believe you people do this for vanity I don't think there's any way you could possibly know. and you are notorious for making claims that you can't support or that you can't possibly know here's just another one.

You can insist that they're not better until the sun Burns out if they weren't they wouldn't be in business. That's a fact you can't sidestep no matter how you try.

I'm not wasting my time googling your stupid argument it sounds retarded and I'm going to dismiss it if you want to prove it I'd be willing to watch you prove it.

 

Because if we have "that problem" of under-insured and uninsured and work to fix it then I am not required to give up my private insurance and take a lesser government plan.

 

The u.s. is the most advanced country in the first world. And that is not a problem for us. it's cheaper to just pay for the people who need something then everyone.

 

They have superior health care. Where have you lived overseas?

 

The VA is socialized medicine, Medicare is not.

 

Yes. Less expensive with better outcomes. Their physicians have excellent training at1/10th cost and they actually the ecfmg exams in the US... Actually should read Ace.

 

No they do not. Any such system either provides care for a small population or piggy backs off another country.

 

There's something those who don't like the idea of all US citizens having healthcare seem to forget. Collectively, the nation already spends more than other developed nations on medical care while getting inferior results. The goal, no matter how it is achieved, is universal coverage for less than we are spending now. Nationalized systems around the world provide a template for proving it is possible.

 

They certainly do. Typically our young docs owe $300k in student loans. Foreign schools are far less expensive and deliver an excellent education. Our system prices out a lot of great kids.

 

This is an excellent read for anyone interested.

https://theweek.com/articles/791236/fact-checkers-have-medicareforall-problem

 

Conservatives biggest problem with universal healthcare that few will ever admit in public, is that they see it as rewarding bad behavior or decisions.

In their view, some people simply do not deserve healthcare, and they shouldn't receive it, regardless of outcome. The outcome doesn't matter as much as making sure that people are punished for what they deem as a bad decision/lifestyle/behavior. If the person dies, so be it. They deserved it. They got what was coming to them, and the cosmic balance of social justice has been served.

Thats why conservatives dont want universal healthcare in America.

 

I am an American, but my sister is a UK citizen.

She has stated point blank that she will never ever move back to America for no other reason than the healthcare she receives there is FAR superior to what she would receive in America. Shes a 2 time cancer survivor and owes the NHS her life. She could not have afforded the treatments in America, and would probably have died.

 

the empirical evidence is perfectly clear. Single payer systems provide better care for a fraction of the cost of our system

https://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

 

absolutely false

https://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

 

It's absolutely TRUE!

Read AND COMPREHEND a MICRO economics book.

Steve