So can I if I pay for it. So your point being? You see, you dont get it. I have your system already.. I can pay (if I want) for an insurance that means I can go to the US for treatment. But I also have UHC, which I pay over taxes, which in turn gives me 100% coverage for any illness I have in my lifetime. What do you have? The "freedom" of worrying about if you have the money to get treated or pay for you healthcare insurance? And if you can, then you have the freedom to pay 20 to 50% of the cost anyways if you get sick, .. hell even more if you go over your deductable? All that is worth that you can choose to go see a doctor across the country if it fancies you (and btw you will pay for that), something I can do also if I get private insurance?
The deductible is what you pay before the insurance covers you.
I'm not worried at all. If I do get a serious sickness the hospital, doctor, clinic will take payments if I have to go that route.
The cost I pay and nearly every one else pays is around 20%-30%.
My insurance covers most of it though, so it won't be impossible or improbable to pay it.
Why is wrong to pay for health care?
The funny part is that UHC does cover hospital care 100%, and there is no limit. And it is STILL cheaper than your system.
If I only cared about price then you would be absolutely right.
Price is not the only consideration in getting health care though.
Time to services rendered is much more important.
Of course not, because it is total bull****. Prove it. The only idiots that claim such things are the fanatical right wingers who hate Europe and the rest of the world.
If you think about it, it is entirely plausible for this to be true.
If a pharmaceutical manufacturer has a specific margin to cover the expenses and they know they can only get x% from the various European countries and Canada they will adjust what they charge to the U.S. to make up the lost margin from Europe and Canada.
I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I hate Europe.
I love European culture and the people for the most part.
I'm not a right winger.
Fact is that in Europe the UHC are actually allowed to negotiate with drug companies on prices.. something that you are not allowed in the US. Fact is that in Europe, our independent oversight (something I know is totally alien for an American) prevents drug companies from exploiting people. We dont tell the drug companies what they should sell their drugs for by any means but we do have a system in place (varies of course country to country) that prevent exploitation by Drug companies. The system is pretty simple, the drug companies know that if they choose to demand too high a price then the government can change that, so the drug companies are more realistic in their price setting and the government almost never gets involved. And dont think that our drug prices are dirt cheap, because they are not.
The FDA, executive branch, and the pharmaceutical companies are all in bed together, I know this.
The FDA is a mixture of heavy corruption and ineptness, it should not even exist.
Now in the US, the drug companies have freedom to charge whatever they wish (thanks to dear Bush), which I bet you find just fine. I guess a 1000% mark up on drugs that they have a patent for 20+ years is not something that bothers you, especially if it is a drug that is the difference between life and death.. naw it is after all the free market and if you cant pay, then it sucks to be you and hope you have money for a burial. And dont you dare go to Canada to buy an aspirin.. we will throw you in jail for life for drug trafficking!
It doesn't matter if it is Bush or Obama, the corruption and ineptness will continue.
I believe in a
true free market not a mercantilism market.
We operate and so does Europe under mercantilism.
Yes it is a logical solution, and yes I dont agree, especially in the US healthcare system where everything is overpriced to the extreme. What about those that cant finance their excess bills? Stop treatment and let the person die? Or continue the treatment and when over let the family live on the street?
Hospitals will take payments, it is not that much of a problem if we can free the insurance market and the amount of doctors graduated.
No one will live in the street, that is just an emotional red herring.
No one ever claimed it was, but it is also no the freaking dark ages.
I know its not the dark ages but the government continues to interfere with what could be a continuous age of human enlightenment and freedom.
There is one hell of a difference between making piratical and logical decisions and letting the all might profit margin dictate what, who, where and by how much you are allowed to be treated. Yes there is no use in treating a 75 year old for cancer, and it is rare that it happens regardless of where it is. It is not because the person is 75 years old, but that the treatment is so harsh on the body that a 75 years survival chances are very low. Now denying treatment for a 50 year old because he or she cant afford it, that is heartless and cold and has no room in a modern western country in the 21st century.
Companies live and die on profit.
If they don't make a profit who will supply this medical care you love so much?
If the 75 year old can pay for it why should we stop them?
No one is letting 50 year old women die.
And you base this on what statistics or facts?
I base this on the fact that if I need surgery for anything I can get it next week.
You UHC subscribers can't.
You know as well as I do, that any reform in the current insurance structure will never ever happen in the present US political system. There is simply no political will go after one of the industries that contributes hugely to the campaign funds of both political parties.
Then instead of focusing all our efforts on getting a trashy, ineffective government health care system we can focus on real tangible reform.
As for paying for minor services out of pocket. While a noble idea if the person can pay, it kind of defeats the idea of preventive medicine. If it costs say 100 bucks to see a doctor for a check up, then people will avoid that cost. This means that when they finally do fall ill with something then the costs will be high, especially if that illness could have been prevented or attacked earlier due to seeing a doctor for a regular check up.
The prices will not be stagnant they will become lower because of price competition.
Price competition is a fact. Your 100 visit will dwindle to less than 50 in my opinion.
And why is that? Could it be to keep prices up?
That is exactly why.
And that does not explain it at all. The US has fewer hospital beds, doctors and somewhat nurses than most Western European countries. We also have "limits" on places for learning to be a doctor in our education system.. it has always been like that, and yes we have problems with not enough doctors, but not because we dont have enough places, but because people dont want to be doctors. Spending 7+ years in school is just not appealing to many
It doesn't explain it all for sure.
The classical education for doctors is extremely antiquated.
It needs to be changed drastically.
We have a problem with nurses but they is being remedied as we speak.
The nurse training programs in my area are overloaded.
There is a waiting list for them, some as long as two years.
Really depends on what and how you define "over crowding".
To many patients and not enough personnel and infrastructure plus waiting lists equals over crowded.
I thought nothing was fair in the world.... and your idea of "fair" is just another typical excuse by hard core right wingers to be egotists and screw society and your fellow man.
How is it fair for people who are normally healthy to pay for people who are not?
I owe nothing to "my fellow man."
I'm not a right winger.
Okay, that means heart disease, cancer, tuberculoses and almost every illness on the books should not be covered. It is a personal choice to eat foods that give you heart disease, it is a personal choice to be near people that smoke, or smoke yourself, it is a personal choice to be next to someone on the subway that has tuberculoses and then you contract it. Your argument is not only sexist, but idiotic and lame. You are no better than the freaking Taliban that are attempting to prevent women form getting healthcare related services, especially on pregnancy.
Those are not even in the same boat, what crap.
Smoking is a personal choice that
could make you sick. No guarantees.
Same with the others.
Pregnancy is not a sickness. You can purposefully get pregnant with a certain amount of accuracy.
It is not sexist. I want the
parents both male and female, to pay for the pregnancy.
I didn't know the Taliban advocated for personal responsibility.
Is that why we attacked them?
Who says they wont use it? Are you just pissed that you have to pay for women and their gyno visits? Should women be pissed to pay for you prostate exams?
I shouldn't pay for women and they shouldn't pay for me.
As for you last comment.. what a hyperhole. You are advocating survival of the fittest period.
Nope. I'm advocating for survival of the
fit.
The fittest are the height of a population. "Fit" is the minimum one must be to make it in our civilization.
