Just watched this:
$500 / stitch is insane, :lol: Seriously, your system is laughable :lol:
and one quite new video about our healthcare system here in Finland:
And just think if they didn't have us(Big Brother) that protects them and they really had to spend for a military?
Wtf does that have to do with healthcare costs? You're intentionally trying to distract with nonsensical information.
"What if they have less squirrels than us? Then their healthcare would be astronomically expensive and unaffordable for millions just like ours!"
We pay over double PER CAPITA what other nations pay yet we still are ranked low globally in quality of care, access to care, affordability, life expectancy, infant mortality rate, and every other metric. The US has the most rationed healthcare in the western world with literal death panels at insurance agencies deciding who dies and lives.
Are they including what an insurance company makes in this cost?
Of course it will cost more?
I don't understand your question or why you chose to ignore all of my post. ALL EXPENSES CONSIDERED Americans pay over double per capita what other nations pay to GET LESS. If you want to challenge that objective fact, use your words and make an argument instead of these lazy one liners.
I don't understand your question
I know(LOL)
Look, I, like you have a problem with our cost
Doesn't mean we need to turn it over to our VAIN FED GOV
Also, our Healthcare is actually better in many ways
We lead innovation for example
You've made it clear that you're only here to distract and obstruct any conversation of the facts. There are dozens and dozens of different healthcare models, many of which are free market and not managed by the government. You're willfully choosing to be ignorant of facts.
I THINK what he is saying, is that due to those countries spending less on military, they can afford to spend more on healthcare. Which reduces INDIVIDUAL costs.
More over, they can reduce the cost of healthcare by reducing the overhead, by having free, or dramatically cheaper education, and reduced R and D, since the US is responsible for most innovations.
Not saying our system is perfect, or even ideal. Its FUBAR. But we will not be able to imitate their systems.
The basic concept of universal (publicly funded) medical care (or anything else, for that matter) is that everyone will get the same level of goods/services but only those who make "too much" must pay the taxation required for the government to fund those goods/services. Obviously, having such a system means that one's income level determines their cost of medical care but has no bearing on the level of (subsidized) medical care that they will receive.
As noted in the (first OP) video, UHC does not mean that there will be no additiponal out-of-pocket costs - co-pays (user fees?) may still be required either as a fixed amount or as a percentage of the cost of goods/services received. Having UHC also does not mean that everyone gets equal priority for receiving any publicly funded medical treatment - some may have to wait until (all?) others deemed to be in more urgent need of medical attention have been taken care of.
I THINK what he is saying, is that due to those countries spending less on military, they can afford to spend more on healthcare. Which reduces INDIVIDUAL costs.
More over, they can reduce the cost of healthcare by reducing the overhead, by having free, or dramatically cheaper education, and reduced R and D, since the US is responsible for most innovations.
Not saying our system is perfect, or even ideal. Its FUBAR. But we will not be able to imitate their systems.
That is incorrect. In most UHC countries EVERYBODY contributes, not just the rich. In Germany, for instance, it's 7% of your income, no matter what you make. You can also choose your doctor, health insurer or even decide to pull out of the public system altogether and go private with your money. There are dozens of flavors and ways we could do this.
Also as far as prioritization goes, the US currently has a system where wealth is what prioritizes care instead of need. Further, unless you're massively wealthy, whether you can get treatment or not is decided by analysts at a private insurance company. In UHC countries the only person deciding if you get a procedure or not and with what priority is you and the doctor you freely chose for yourself.
That (bolded above) does not seem to be consistent with our current M4A bills. These M4A bills heavily depend on taxing "the rich" more, eliminating any 'private' medical care insurance and eliminating for-profit medical care providers.
Summary of H.R. 676 (113th): Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act - GovTrack.us
Text - S.1804 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Medicare for All Act of 2017 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
So when talking about UHC systems you said it couldn't work because of a policy that really only the US does? Cool. I'm not saying any specific M4A bill is the answer, I'm saying we could effectively implement UHC without the issues you mentioned if we wanted to, but Americans for some reason just do not want high quality affordable health care.
What's wrong with the German model of flat 7% across the board? Many countries have dual public and private systems so consumers can choose. Why can't we do that?
Just watched this:
$500 / stitch is insane, :lol: Seriously, your system is laughable :lol:
and one quite new video about our healthcare system here in Finland:
I know(LOL)
Look, I, like you have a problem with our cost
Doesn't mean we need to turn it over to our VAIN FED GOV
Also, our Healthcare is actually better in many ways
We lead innovation for example
$500 / stitch is insane, :lol: Seriously, your system is laughable :lol:
There's a limit to how useful these attempts at international comparison are.
At first glance, it's impressive how little the U.K. spends on its NHS. On the other hand, the NHS is reaching a crisis point due to chronic underfunding. You could always spend less if you decided to prioritize savings over services, but there's a very strong bias against that in the United States.
Well for most.of.America we.are.reaching a crisis point due to spiraling cost. Insurance premiums without the employer paying them are just out of reach.
Just watched this:
$500 / stitch is insane, :lol: Seriously, your system is laughable :lol:
and one quite new video about our healthcare system here in Finland:
1. Finland is Finland.
2. The United States is the United States.
3. The thread title calls American health care a "bad joke."
4. Finland is a small country with a small population that is culturally homogeneous.
5. The United States is a huge country with a large population that is NOT culturally homogeneous.
6. For the people who have good insurance, American healthcare is not a "bad joke." It is probably as good or better than that in any other country.
7. For people who do not have good insurance, American healthcare is not so good.
8. Because the majority of our "leaders" in Congress are petty and selfish and incompetent, there is no way to get good healthcare for everyone in this country.
9. So the costs will continue to mount, many people will continue to suffer because of mediocre healthcare, and some people (insurance companies, etc.) will continue to make a lot of money.
10. Nothing will change until we have adults in the White House and the Congress. Not the circus clowns that currently control this country.