4 ms·

The difference is that there aren't 1 out 6 people (50 million) without health insurance in the UK and Canada. Another difference is that no one in the UK or Ca

The difference is that there aren't 1 out 6 people (50 million) without health insurance in the UK and Canada. Another difference is that no one in the UK or Canada would ever have to go bankrupt trying to get that "fancy heart surgery" or "fancy cancer treatment" or "fancy kidney transplant". "just in case by the time they are able to get that fancy heart surgery" And, the 50 Million people who could never, ever hope to get that fancy heart surgery because they can't afford the surgery or the insurance (or don't qualify)? What of them? Saying they are comparable in any way except "doctors perform treatment on patients in a licensed and regulated manner" is reaching.

rada 14y ago
1-in-6/50MM without health insurance is not as straightforward a fact as it seems. Not saying there isn't a problem, just pointing out a few considerations: 1. Insurance is not the same as coverage. Plenty of Americans who do not have health insurance are covered through various programs for children, the elderly, veterans, etc. 2. Insurance is voluntary, and many people who can in fact afford it, simply choose to spend money on "stuff", including that sacred cow of american life, home ownership. 3. The statistics for the uninsured (like your 1-in-6 number) include the elderly, the illegal immigrants, those who are uninsured only part of the year, and other groups that skew the results. 4. If 50MM (although I dispute that number as per above) cannot get the heart surgery because they don't have any coverage but the other 250MM can, it's better than, say, 200MM not being able to get the surgery because of waiting times or ineligibility. Of course, those are totally made up numbers, I am just making a point.