3 ms·

|85% of the population has healthcare in the US. Hospitals will also not turn down someone that goes there in an emergency. Compared to 100% in the countries I

by lotusleaf1987 16y ago

|85% of the population has healthcare in the US. Hospitals will also not turn down someone that goes there in an emergency. Compared to 100% in the countries I mentioned. Also, healthcare in the US doesn't even cover the full cost, there are still premiums and deductibles and dental is usually ~60% compared to 100% in other countries. Your argument is based on blaming the poor, over and over again. It must be easy blaming the most vulnerable class.

rick888 16y ago
"Compared to 100% in the countries I mentioned. Also, healthcare in the US doesn't even cover the full cost, there are still premiums and deductibles and dental is usually ~60% compared to 100% in other countries. Your argument is based on blaming the poor, over and over again. It must be easy blaming the most vulnerable class." I'm blaming people that can work, but choose not to due to their free will. Are these people poor? most likely, yes. You lump these people in the same group as the people that are physically or mentally unable to work. Quality and quantity are different. The US may not have the best overall coverage (due to cost), but the quality of our hospitals are the best in the world. I personally wouldn't want to go anywhere else. I would love to have universal health care, but it's just not a scalable system. When people know everything is covered, many will go to the doctor or hospital when they don't really need to (hey, I'm paying for it). This will result in long lines and too few doctors for too many patients. I've seen this at a much smaller scale with a few of my past employers that have "unlimited technical support". Those companies were always over-worked and couldn't afford to hire more staff. This was because people would call us up for the smallest things. If they were charged per-hour or per-call, the business could have scaled much better. The customers would have also gotten better support because the staff wasn't over-worked. Even though you probably will deny it, this does happen in Canada and many other countries that have government-run healthcare. All of my relatives live in Canada. Most come over here for any major surgery because the waiting list is too long. I know this is just anecdotal evidence, but I've heard this many times before. I know it's not an isolated incident. If there was a system that limited doctor visits (IE: you get a limited amount per year) and then you were charged money after that. This would prevent our hospitals and doctors offices from being swamped and possibly allow us to keep some sort of quality. I know it would never happen, because the government-run healthcare advocates want all or nothing.

rick888 16y ago

"Compared to 100% in the countries I mentioned. Also, healthcare in the US doesn't even cover the full cost, there are still premiums and deductibles and dental is usually ~60% compared to 100% in other countries. Your argument is based on blaming the poor, over and over again. It must be easy blaming the most vulnerable class." I'm blaming people that can work, but choose not to due to their free will. Are these people poor? most likely, yes. You lump these people in the same group as the people that are physically or mentally unable to work. Quality and quantity are different. The US may not have the best overall coverage (due to cost), but the quality of our hospitals are the best in the world. I personally wouldn't want to go anywhere else. I would love to have universal health care, but it's just not a scalable system. When people know everything is covered, many will go to the doctor or hospital when they don't really need to (hey, I'm paying for it). This will result in long lines and too few doctors for too many patients. I've seen this at a much smaller scale with a few of my past employers that have "unlimited technical support". Those companies were always over-worked and couldn't afford to hire more staff. This was because people would call us up for the smallest things. If they were charged per-hour or per-call, the business could have scaled much better. The customers would have also gotten better support because the staff wasn't over-worked. Even though you probably will deny it, this does happen in Canada and many other countries that have government-run healthcare. All of my relatives live in Canada. Most come over here for any major surgery because the waiting list is too long. I know this is just anecdotal evidence, but I've heard this many times before. I know it's not an isolated incident. If there was a system that limited doctor visits (IE: you get a limited amount per year) and then you were charged money after that. This would prevent our hospitals and doctors offices from being swamped and possibly allow us to keep some sort of quality. I know it would never happen, because the government-run healthcare advocates want all or nothing.