It amazes me when I read about US healthcare.A question for you USAers.

a reply to: grainofsand

Fire Departments are municipal, not state/federal.

Where I live, the majority of the fire services are voluntary.

Moment of bragging: despite our firemen being mostly volunteers, we have one of the highest rated departments in the nation. One of our guys is frequently on DIscovery and other similar channels as the worlds leading expert on petroleum fires.

Very few of these folks are paid (the "city" folks are, but are also EMTs). Its just responsible men and women doing what responsible men and women do: save their neighbors lives when needed.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Wow, I learned something new about your volunteer firefighters, respect to all who do that.
The funding of the fire trucks, training, station houses and such like I assume is from local taxes though?
If it is then I again wonder how that is much different to municipalities funding their own health clinics/hospitals etc, if they were allowed to opt out of the ACA and other insurance schemes?

Totally hypothetical here, just making the comparison as people cry "taxpayer funded healthcare = socialist, but taxpayer funded fire service = no problem"
Genuine question to understand the mindset, no need for anyone to think I'm dissing the US, I just cannot understand how taxpayer funding of one emergency service is acceptable but another is not.
Surely using that logic then either ER rooms are tax payer funded as well, or fire services should be covered by personal/household insurance policies?

I am genuinely interested.

a reply to: grainofsand

Like i said: i likely wouldn't argue too much about state funded medical care. But if it means that taxes are levied further on the middle class....its a deal breaker.

Most everyone else...you won't get an honest answer. This is a political discussion, and folks are dug in to their political beliefs for right or wrong. Even when someone knows they are wrong, they won't admit it...because they are dug in.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I get what you are saying but I have to ask, why you do not advocate personal household fire service insurance policies to pay for rescue if you need it?
Fire stations providing emergency cover for people funded by taxation seems to be a similar concept to me, how do you differentiate if I may respectfully ask?

That's what homeowner's insurance is for (something usually mandated by mortgage companies, but you're free not to have if you own your house free and clear). Other than that, you take on the personal responsibility to understand what you and your family must do in the case of fire.

If you're seriously relying on the fire department to come rescue you during a fire, by the time they get they, if you're truly trapped by a raging fire, it's probably too late--kind of like calling the cops to save you from the guy in your house holding a gun to your head. By the time they get there, they'll be in the first stages of an investigation of an assault or murder, not there to save you.

But like BigFurryTexan says, many fire departments are partially, if not fully, populated by volunteer firefighters. I was about to become one myself in my old city before we up and moved. It's still not out of the realm of possibility for me.

Also--and one big reason why they're different--is because you should at least get annual health check ups as preventative maintenance of your health. The fire department exists as a reactionary force, and I would venture to guess that most people never need to use them during their lifetime.

But like I said before, municipal taxes going to services like this is completely different than federal taxes controlling something.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

My comment includes it being left to the individual how much they want of their income to go toward their healthcare and how much they want to spend.

In Canada, it's estimated to be roughly between 5-7% of a person's total annual earnings goes towards the universal healthcare pool countrywide:

The lowest-income Canadians (those earning less than $24,000 a year) pay 5.8 per cent of their income for health care, while those in the highest-income group (more than $72,000) pay 7.5 per cent. Of course, that does not mean that they pay equal amounts of money. The poor pay, on average, $1,020 a year, compared with $8,650 for the wealthy.

Link

Your government controls the purse for healthcare--that's hardly "absolutely no part in it whatsoever."

How does my government controlling the purse stop me from getting, say, surgery as per recommended by my doctor. Or how does that stop me from going to see another doctor for a second opinion, or a third, or fourth ? How does that effect my day to day healthcare needs and maintenance protocols ?

Hint: It doesn't.

Me and my doctor are the only ones saying "yay" or "nay" to any of my healthcare needs, treatments, and procedures. The government plays no part in determining what I can or can't do with my (or my doctor's) medical choices and decisions.

My doctor does not need to ask anyone for permission to go ahead with a procedure, nor do I.

If it's a medical need, it's covered... no questions asked.



And here's a couple of interesting tidbits from the link I gave you above:

According to the calculations from CIHI, having publicly funded health care is equivalent to an 18.3-per-cent boost in income for the country’s poorest citizens, and results in an income loss of 4.6 per cent for the wealthiest. For middle-income Canadians, it is pretty well a wash, the equivalent of a modest 2-per-cent gain in income.

Put another way, medicare is an effective way not only of ensuring access to health-care services but also of redistributing income. “What the numbers tell us is that publicly funded health care makes Canada more equal, more fair,” Mr. Denny said.

Food for thought, if nothing else.

a reply to: CranialSponge

From your link (which doesn't help your argument):

Put another way, medicare is an effective way not only of ensuring access to health-care services but also of redistributing income. “What the numbers tell us is that publicly funded health care makes Canada more equal, more fair,” Mr. Denny said.

Income redistribution is not, and should not, be part of the goal of a health insurance system, as "making [insert thing here] more equal, more fair" is a subjective statement--personally, I think it's less fair when you take peoples' money with authoritarian force and do with it what you will.

That's the main point all along when I say that our government was not set up for this type of system, as income redistribution is not the goal of spirit of why our country was founded. Yes, it is more and more gong in that direction (to the detriment of society, not the gain, if you ask me), and I think it needs to be reined in. Minimal taxation for minimal services is all the federal government should be doing. It is a bastardization of the term "General Welfare" and it needs to stop...again, in my opinion.

There isn't really an argument you can provide me that will change my mind, as I heard many a story about the bad parts of having nationalized healthcare from Canadian and British citizens to make me know that all the rose-colored glasses that you advocates keep handing out do not show the entire reality. I've done a lot of research into health insurance systems from different countries, and while your system makes you happy, that's fine--more power to you--but that doesn't mean that your neighbor down the street is happy with it, or that all countries are designed in a way that allots their federal government to socialize the nation's medical services.

ETA: Please, provide proof that there are not any restrictions handed down from the funding authority (your government) to doctors and hospitals to help keep the costs low. If there aren't, then they're being terrible stewards of their citizens' money.

*takes a big whiff* nothing smells funnier than Americans passing judgement on socialized health care.

I grew up in the states and have now lived in two other countries with social healthcare (as they all have because America is like the only "civilized" country without it) and have nothing but good things to say about it. I paid less in taxes in both countries than I paid in the US. I received great care. And best of all I didn't have to listen to self-righteous berks flapping their jaws about not wanting to pay for healthcare for "people who don't deserve it. " whatever that means. As if they pay for everyone directly out of pocket or something. And for those who insist that it "doesn't work" tell that to the rest of the planet where it works just fine.

originally posted by: Malynn
*takes a big whiff* nothing smells funnier than Americans passing judgement on socialized health care.

I grew up in the states and have now lived in two other countries with social healthcare (as they all have because America is like the only "civilized" country without it) and have nothing but good things to say about it. I paid less in taxes in both countries than I paid in the US. I received great care. And best of all I didn't have to listen to self-righteous berks flapping their jaws about not wanting to pay for healthcare for "people who don't deserve it. " whatever that means. As if they pay for everyone directly out of pocket or something. And for those who insist that it "doesn't work" tell that to the rest of the planet where it works just fine.

Peoples political views reflect what they are told to think. The vast majority of humanity are followers. Its why workplaces without rules usually end up with miserable employees....humans want to be lead. Its part of the social aspect of the human organism....not all of us can be alphas.

So you have the vast majority of people parroting the views of their favorite mouthpiece. Get enough people to follow a mouthpiece and you end up with a nationwide meme.

Beyond that, the vast majority of Americans belong to what used to be the middle class. These are people that likely were able to make payments on a brand new car shortly after high school, that worked hard in various trades. Today, they find themselves in worse economic condition than they were in their mid 20's. You can obviously expect that they will balk at anything that even remotely smells like a free ride for someone else, or an increase in their already overwhelming taxes.

This isn't about American people, its about American government. The pinch has been so hard for so long that there is just no blood left in the turnip.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I would respectfully disagree with it only being about the government. In so many cases you hear the line "it's not us its the government. " Who allows the government to do what it does? Americans don't care what the government does anywhere or anytime unless it has a direct verifiable effect on their own lives. They might "care" enough to piss and moan about it but that's about the extent of it.

We could shave off a miniscule crumb from the "defense" budget and have all the money needed to start-up the nationalised healthcare. And the money taken out of our checks would decrease when those pesky insurance premiums are gone. What comes out for healthcare via taxes is barely noticeable.

But no. Killing people in foreign countries is where it's at for most Americans.

a reply to: Malynn

Travel to Killeen, TX and you will see the the Army base there is the #1 employer. That is why American's don't complain about the military budget: we all know someone who would be unemployed with out it. And the cottage industries it has created that support entire cities (not towns, cities) would collapse.

While a big city like San Antonio or maybe El Paso would survive a base closure...Kileen, TX certainly would not.

That is why the defense spending is what it is with barely a whimper. Well, that and the 24x7 fear porn that the MSM pumps people full of. Hell, folks actually think ISIS is staging an invasion through Mexico.

Its the government. They know how stupid people are, and they take advantage of it. They learned from the best. The Nazis were masters at propaganda.

I don't wish to appear a troll here, honestly, but I saw the following quotes in two different threads by a US member and I was genuinely shocked. Is this common and deemed normal to the average US citizen?

Just imagine yourself having to spend 8500 British pounds every year on JUST medicine to stay alive!

Also another thing I should point out that is right up until about 1991 insulin was priced at around $28/bottle. Today, it costs around $185 a bottle, and you have to pay for that until you meet your deductible, which has risen to over $1000 a year for many people with standard "good" health insurance.

If someone is out of work or on a low income in the UK then all medicine is free.
I work and earn above the limits so I have to make a contribution of £8.00 for a prescription. If I had a longterm condition then the doctor would typically make monthly prescriptions so I would pay at most £96 over the year for my medicine. If I lived in Scotland, Wales or N.Ireland then regardless of my income the drugs would be free, England still charges £8 per prescription.

Regarding the second quote, in the UK, all insulin and medicine for people with diabetes is free regardless of income.

So I ask, is this figure of hundreds or thousands of dollars paid out by people with long term conditions normal, and something one would expect even with "good" health insurance?

I'm genuinely curious, but completely shocked at the same time if your sick people have to find so much money for such basic medicine every month?

a reply to: grainofsand

There are assistance programs that people who are really, really broke can get help through. For kids, there's Medicare which is handed out like candy to any kid that an application is recieved for. "For the children" is a meme that shall not be overcome, and totally trumps "NO FREE LUNCH!" any day of the week. So the kids are easily covered by any parent with the wits to fill out the paperwork.

But adults...its a dog eat dog world out there. Insulin is expensive as hell. Chemo...that is about $20k per dose to cure a relatively simple lymphoma with CHOP. Rituxin, which is also used with most lymphomas, is in the 10-20k range. So to survive the most survivable cancer there is will cost you about a quarter million without insurance.

Or you can fill out a crapload of paperwork and get approved by some assistance programs (most run by the Oncology oversight at a governmental level), and get a reduced price (that they will happily accept monthly payments towards paying off).

Is it bleak? Hell yeah it is. Is it insurmountable? No...you just have to jump through your own rectum during the worst moments of your life.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
Cheers for the reply, it really does sound a bleak situation for some folk then, I personally find it hard to imagine.

My young adult son had Maxillofacial corrective surgery this week at the local hospital, general anaesthetic, 2 hours under the knife, weeks worth of antibiotics and codeine to take home, total cost, nothing, aside from the taxes we all pay.

And again to repeat, I am not bashing the US here, but to be honest I am a bit saddened that in the biggest economy in the world there are normal folk like me who may miss out on treatment or drugs just because they cannot afford it.

I wish universal healthcare for everyone in the world, and consider healthcare as important as defence.
Call me a rabid socialist but I really don't understand any of the arguments against individual states opting out of the ACA/insurance systems and providing something similar for it's citizens.
It could be done if the people wanted it, I just assume the people don't. That seems a pity to me.

Nice Thead BoyM.

I moved back to the states ten years ago, after many years abroad in a civilized northern European country. Taxes were high but it was all fair. I enjoyed the manner of society healthcare was excellent and I for some reason assumed moveing back wouldn't interupt my way of life.

This is terrible, no proper legal rights for the working citizen ( off topic) and healthcare is non excistent. I am in debt above my means for minor visits to a care facility. I have hardly any teath left, it is cheaper to pull them.

It is insane in country that brags about being the "Greatest" on earth. No matter how hard I work I can't afford it.

I find my self hopeing I get a rapidly invasive terminal illness, because I can't go back to that country due to strict immigration policies.
And I don't like back-tracking myself.
I have an excellent education but unfortunatly it isn't valued here.
I made a horrible mistake.
WIS

No way...Our taxes are high enough in this country. How Europeans sit idly by with 40% taxes is beyond me. It's no wonder most of them live in small apartments, with small cars (or no car at all), small TV, small everything else...we have a luxury here in the US and a quality of live not seen elsewhere in the world. In order to make everyone equal (as with communism) the people often become equally poor.

originally posted by: AnonymousMoose
No way...Our taxes are high enough in this country. How Europeans sit idly by with 40% taxes is beyond me. It's no wonder most of them live in small apartments, with small cars (or no car at all), small TV, small everything else...we have a luxury here in the US and a quality of live not seen elsewhere in the world. In order to make everyone equal (as with communism) the people often become equally poor.

This says a lot about the American mindset.

Things over people.

In my opinion we should have either done socialized medical care or do nothing at all. Obamacare hasn't really helped the lower class and especially the lower middle class. People that are barely scraping by as is now have to pay for insurance or pay a fine for not having it. Sure the costs could be lower depending on you situation than if you were to have it before but an extra 100$ a month on a already money stretched populace is not helping anyone.

In regards to having nationalized healthcare in exchange for higher taxes, I don't believe this would have to be the case. If the USA just cut down on it's defense spending and other programs we wouldn't have to pay higher taxes.

So If you had the chance would you pay more income tax to have an NHS type socialized medical care?

No.

Medicare, and medicaid is 'socialized' medicine, and are colossal failures.

Keep in mind there combined or single those programs have more people on them than most EU countries.

Socialized medicine ?

Code speak for 'free healthcare' that isn't free. Where everyone is using it hardly anyone paying for it.

And private healthcare runs circles around BOTH of them.

a reply to: corvuscorraxgood to know how important big TVs and big cars are to some people. The size of the car and TV probably compensate for something

a reply to: neo96
The US spends more on health yet gets poorer results.
www.commonwealthfund.org...
Medicare is just a sticking plaster on a failing system.