Calling All Non-Americans!! Would You Trade Health Care Systems With Us?

[Badger]

Most people on this forum are not upper middle class or significantly privileged. Maybe very few if any grew up in actual poverty, but there's a very fine line between that and what Fezzy is assuming in that basically everyone grew up like himself. My parents are very far above the poverty line, but they sure as hell aren't rich.

You have no idea how I grew up or anything about my family.  So tell me, how is it that I assume everyone grew up?  Because there are two conflicting stories you're telling.  If I really think everyone grew up like I actually did, then that is very different from what I am articulating right now.  So please enlighten me on what kind of life I live.  I also seem to remember a poll from some time ago on forum members' classes, you might want to take a gander at that if you don't take my word for it.

I'm so over these trendy brats trying to be all different by faking poverty and hardship.  In reality suburban American kids are all the same.  It's pitiful to see people tripping all over themselves trying to fabricate this difficult life to make their sad, boring lives more interesting.

With respect, Fezzy, before you get bent out of shape over someone characterizing your background without personal knowledge about you, please note that you did that to the entire forum with the same lack of knowledge about our individual real world situations.

[Badger]

It's pretty blatant people are voting "no" to make a point.  Our healthcare is clearly far superior and would prove beneficial to the dominant demographic on the forum.  Though I suppose it is the "Political Debate" section so I should expect people to vote politically.

Now back to the debate...

Would any conservative explain to me how the strengths of the American health care system are due to having a patchwork of private health insurance that leaves tens of millions uninsured or underinsured. Could it be that the cutting edge technology is due to our world class educational system instead? I mean, it's not like anybody at Aetna or Blue Cross/Blue Shield invented any technology being used at the Mayo clinic, and undercutting their business some with a public health insurance option--which conservatives and insurance companies complain will deliver health care cheaper and more efficiently than the private sector--will reduce the development of cutting edge health care technology.

BTW: The input from international Atlasians in this thread is really instructive. Keep it up! Share stories, please!

[Lief 🗽]

Jack Layton (the Canadian NDP leader) was just on the Ed Show to talk about how Canadian healthcare is not some awful thing (and is in fact one of the best health care systems in the world). What a cool guy. You Canadians should go vote for him.

[Хahar 🤔]

Jack Layton (the Canadian NDP leader) was just on the Ed Show to talk about how Canadian healthcare is not some awful thing (and is in fact one of the best health care systems in the world). What a cool guy. You Canadians should go vote for him.

He wins every time, you know.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Most people on this forum are not upper middle class or significantly privileged. Maybe very few if any grew up in actual poverty, but there's a very fine line between that and what Fezzy is assuming in that basically everyone grew up like himself. My parents are very far above the poverty line, but they sure as hell aren't rich.

You have no idea how I grew up or anything about my family.  So tell me, how is it that I assume everyone grew up?  Because there are two conflicting stories you're telling.  If I really think everyone grew up like I actually did, then that is very different from what I am articulating right now.  So please enlighten me on what kind of life I live.  I also seem to remember a poll from some time ago on forum members' classes, you might want to take a gander at that if you don't take my word for it.

I'm so over these trendy brats trying to be all different by faking poverty and hardship.  In reality suburban American kids are all the same.  It's pitiful to see people tripping all over themselves trying to fabricate this difficult life to make their sad, boring lives more interesting.

I'm thinking of the thread about your house for how you grew up.

You're making a rather amusing false dichotomy in this thread, amusing because it's kind of opebo-esque. Basically one is either prosperous and affluent or in poverty. And since no one on this forum has been in true poverty, everyone must've had an affluent upper-middle class upbringing. There's a lot more possible categories than that. Like I said, my parents make a lot more than the poverty line, but they sure as hell aren't rich. Hell I myself am making close to three times the poverty line and have enough money to have never missed a bill payment for any reason other than simply forgetting, yet calling me rich would be downright comical.

[Hatman 🍁]

Jack Layton (the Canadian NDP leader) was just on the Ed Show to talk about how Canadian healthcare is not some awful thing (and is in fact one of the best health care systems in the world). What a cool guy. You Canadians should go vote for him.

He wins every time, you know.

hahaha. What's with the tongue Lief? I hope you're not sarcastic.

And technically, Jack *does* win all the time (his seat that is). The party does not, though.

[Lief 🗽]

Jack Layton (the Canadian NDP leader) was just on the Ed Show to talk about how Canadian healthcare is not some awful thing (and is in fact one of the best health care systems in the world). What a cool guy. You Canadians should go vote for him.

He wins every time, you know.

hahaha. What's with the tongue Lief? I hope you're not sarcastic.

No, no, just saying that any Canadian forum members probably have their minds made up already on this sort of thing and probably don't take my advice very highly when it comes to voting for their own politicians.

[Badger]

With respect, Fezzy, before you get bent out of shape over someone characterizing your background without personal knowledge about you, please note that you did that to the entire forum with the same lack of knowledge about our individual real world situations.

What I did was make a generalization about internet and forum users as a whole, both of which have ample evidence available suggesting they consist of a largely more wealthy group of individuals than the world as a whole.  Something completely different than claiming to know the life of any one of those people in particular.

Corrected for accuracy.

[A18]

But I certainly hope time machines are invented one day, so that those who think the 1800's were the good old days are welcome to go back to them.

To say that government policy in the 1800s was, in some respects, superior to what has replaced it, is a far cry from calling the 1800s the "good old days."

I have no idea what the rest of your post has to do with anything.

[Ban my account ffs!]

But I certainly hope time machines are invented one day, so that those who think the 1800's were the good old days are welcome to go back to them.

To say that government policy in the 1800s was, in some respects, superior to what has replaced it, is a far cry from calling the 1800s the "good old days."

I have no idea what the rest of your post has to do with anything.

How were they superior?  Can you come up with broad examples of how society was better off in the 19th century than it is today?

To revert back to a 19th century style government policy would be disastrous. 

You might think things like Social Security would be better off not existing because you have the means to save for your own retirement... but there are millions of American seniors that never had enough to save.  What about them?

You economic conservatives never seem to answer the hard questions, instead dancing around them with economic theories that have never been put into practice and have no real proof of viability.

You know people would die.  People can't take care of their parents like they did back then.  Why?  Because today, everybody's parents live to old age... and rather than having 8 kids to look after them, they have 1 or 2.  Explain to me how an only child is supposed to care for 2 elderly people who never had enough means to fund their retirement?

[opebo]

To say that government policy in the 1800s was, in some respects, superior to what has replaced it, is a far cry from calling the 1800s the "good old days."

I have no idea what the rest of your post has to do with anything.

How were they superior?  Can you come up with broad examples of how society was better off in the 19th century than it is today?

It was, or at least appeared to be, better for the rich.  Therefore Philip prefers it.  We must remember, however, that Philip and his ilk do not in fact have any understanding of how society works, and labour under a willful refusal to look at the brutality of the world in which they actually live.  They are deludeds.

[Ban my account ffs!]

To say that government policy in the 1800s was, in some respects, superior to what has replaced it, is a far cry from calling the 1800s the "good old days."

I have no idea what the rest of your post has to do with anything.

How were they superior?  Can you come up with broad examples of how society was better off in the 19th century than it is today?

It was, or at least appeared to be, better for the rich.  Therefore Philip prefers it.  We must remember, however, that Philip and his ilk do not in fact have any understanding of how society works, and labour under a willful refusal to look at the brutality of the world in which they actually live.  They are deludeds.

I'm starting to agree with you.  It's not a personal insult to Philip.  He's a very intelligent person, but I think his economic ideas are deluded because while they might function in a vacuum, he failes to add the human element into the picture.

[A18]

I don't believe that society was better off in the Nineteenth Century. Living standards were much lower across the board; and even in the policy realm, the picture was, on the whole, much bleaker.

What modern policies would I overturn? Foremost among them would be the creation of a vast and unaccountable administrative state, the American "drug war" and the police-state practices it has given rise to, the enactment of legislation bestowing special privileges upon labor unions, our constant intervention in the affairs of foreign peoples whose circumstances few of us genuinely understand, and the birth of the Modern Presidency (c. 1897).

This probably isn't the place for a full-blown Social Security debate, but with respect to those "millions of American seniors that never had enough to save," I can't help but point out that the payroll tax which finances Social Security has something to do with that. It's also unclear why the "human element" is to be so narrowly defined. Why is the well-being of the elderly all that matters? Aren't there struggling youths, as well?

Your arguments would be plausible enough if we were talking about a program designed to help needy seniors. But Social Security is a program that takes indiscriminately from the young, including the working poor, and gives indiscriminately to the old, including the quite rich. A more arbitrary transfer payment would be difficult to imagine.

[Nym90]

But I certainly hope time machines are invented one day, so that those who think the 1800's were the good old days are welcome to go back to them.

To say that government policy in the 1800s was, in some respects, superior to what has replaced it, is a far cry from calling the 1800s the "good old days."

I have no idea what the rest of your post has to do with anything.

Well, the point was that there is a cause and effect relationship. One of the primary reasons why we've made the advances we have is because of government policies that have reduced poverty and increased economic opportunity.

[A18]

I of course don't agree that the policies at issue accomplished any such thing.

[Vepres]

But for cutting-edge technology, specialists, and immediate service ours is superior.

...if you have the money (and certain other things). And if you don't? Ordinary people can have rare-and-serious illlnesses as well...

I didn't say it was cheap or that it was universal. My point was that, in the US's system, we should strive to keep the good aspects of our care while simultaneously providing universal coverage (however one may go about it).

[Marokai Backbeat]

I of course don't agree that the policies at issue accomplished any such thing.

Oh, well, argument settled then.

[Ban my account ffs!]

But for cutting-edge technology, specialists, and immediate service ours is superior.

...if you have the money (and certain other things). And if you don't? Ordinary people can have rare-and-serious illlnesses as well...

I didn't say it was cheap or that it was universal. My point was that, in the US's system, we should strive to keep the good aspects of our care while simultaneously providing universal coverage (however one may go about it).

I think everybody is for that.  I believe the best way is to provide insurance to the poor, young, old, and uninsurable while letting private insurance cover the healthy, working adults.

If people feel the need to purchase supplemental insurance to cover bills in a case where they need expensive, high quality care, then they should be free to do so.

There should also be a catastrophic coverage claus where insurance companies and the government pick up the tab in extraordinary cases where people rack up huge bills to have their lives saved (like an accident or major, unexpected complications brought on by other medical problems)

The government could have a program where they provide a guaranteed loan to someone with huge medical bills that insurance won't cover.  The payments should be affordable, the interest rate low, and once the person has paid for a certain period of time (payments tied to income), the rest is forgiven and eaten by the government.

[A18]

I of course don't agree that the policies at issue accomplished any such thing.

Oh, well, argument settled then.

As any literate person can easily verify, our exchange was not about the merits of particular policy stances. (Nym's own statement was, mind you, every bit as unsupported as mine.) It was about whether those of us who oppose certain Twentieth Century policy innovations, look back on the 1800s as some sort of golden era. Hence, my reply was entirely adequate.

[Badger]

Yes, in a heartbeat.

And Lewis, I'm sorry, but that's not true at all. Complaints about Britain's system (which is far from excelent, Germany's is way better) are almost all rationing related, not complaints of doctors about unruly patients.

IIRC, other than Bono no one else from outside the US posted a "Yes, give me Aetna or give me death response". There were 5 yes votes in the poll, though. Any comment from the other 4?

I'm kindly assuming that none of those other 4 votes were posted by US conservatives disgruntled at how bad they were being shellacked in the "horrors of other countries with national health care reality check".

[Vepres]

But for cutting-edge technology, specialists, and immediate service ours is superior.

...if you have the money (and certain other things). And if you don't? Ordinary people can have rare-and-serious illlnesses as well...

I didn't say it was cheap or that it was universal. My point was that, in the US's system, we should strive to keep the good aspects of our care while simultaneously providing universal coverage (however one may go about it).

I think everybody is for that.  I believe the best way is to provide insurance to the poor, young, old, and uninsurable while letting private insurance cover the healthy, working adults.

If people feel the need to purchase supplemental insurance to cover bills in a case where they need expensive, high quality care, then they should be free to do so.

There should also be a catastrophic coverage claus where insurance companies and the government pick up the tab in extraordinary cases where people rack up huge bills to have their lives saved (like an accident or major, unexpected complications brought on by other medical problems)

The government could have a program where they provide a guaranteed loan to someone with huge medical bills that insurance won't cover.  The payments should be affordable, the interest rate low, and once the person has paid for a certain period of time (payments tied to income), the rest is forgiven and eaten by the government.

I agree, at least partially, with all of this.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But for cutting-edge technology, specialists, and immediate service ours is superior.

...if you have the money (and certain other things). And if you don't? Ordinary people can have rare-and-serious illlnesses as well...

I didn't say it was cheap or that it was universal. My point was that, in the US's system, we should strive to keep the good aspects of our care while simultaneously providing universal coverage (however one may go about it).

There's absolutely no reason why high-quality specialist care can't run alongside a state healthcare system. And, speaking from very recent personal experience, no reason why it can't be part of it.
Vanity operations and the like; that's different.

[Bono]

But for cutting-edge technology, specialists, and immediate service ours is superior.

...if you have the money (and certain other things). And if you don't? Ordinary people can have rare-and-serious illlnesses as well...

I didn't say it was cheap or that it was universal. My point was that, in the US's system, we should strive to keep the good aspects of our care while simultaneously providing universal coverage (however one may go about it).

There's absolutely no reason why high-quality specialist care can't run alongside a state healthcare system. And, speaking from very recent personal experience, no reason why it can't be part of it.
Vanity operations and the like; that's different.

That's only because they don't have anywhere else to work at. The problem is not that there aren't good specialists in state systems, but that access to them is rationed.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Fezzy is 100% right.  Too bad I am the first person to come to his defense in this thread (also the first non-European or liberal to post here)

I live in a town where the median family income is around $80,000 with <4% poverty.  That pretty much describe your typical middle class American town.  I have never once heard of anyone that does not have health insurance.  The large majority of Americans who do not already receive some sort of medical assistance (Medicare and Medicaid) have health insurance, to suggest otherwise is nothing short of a blatent lie.

The typical American has no problem seeing doctors, hell illegal Mexicans I know just walk into the emergency room and get treated for free anyway.  Can there be problems with insurance?  Sure, I guess, but I've never had an issue where after a simple call to the insurer something isn't worked out to help me.

[Lief 🗽]

I live in a town where the median family income is around $80,000 with <4% poverty.  That pretty much describe your typical middle class American town.

lol