Xebedee

Know what? It just doesn't pay to dwell on the stark and plain truth of the matter, which I have concluded as being:
Its all about money.
It would be so refreshing and uplifting to hear an argument which proves this contention to be wrong. Other than accepting it as a crude fact of life, which is fair enough as you simply must or go nuts.

Now, its understood that England is already in trouble and heading downhill economically, so there is no shangri-la across the pond. They are talking of privatisation of benefits, going the way of the US more and more with each passing year.

Its funny really, the UK now sees the results of unfettered nu-socialism and the US is seeing the results of an unchecked free-market. Do they seem to be nudging back towards each other?

Tracym

Interesting observation. Sounds like it.

I personally generally think middle of the road works better for most thing than extremes.

Xebedee

Nice to agree with you for a change.
Middle of the road in the US - driven by social rights more than the balance sheet?
A bit of common sense to help the machine tick over?

Always thought that America can do much better socially.
That was the original idea, after all.

Mallory

That's true, but it applies to both countries. Nursing home care used to be free in both countries, but that is changing. In the UK they will make you sell your house if you don't have a spouse living in it. In the US you can keep your house, then after you die, if you were on Medicaid, they will ask the heirs to pay some of it back (from the assets).

Tracym

to you as well.

I think the U.S. will always be driven by the balance sheet to some extent. And I'm not even opposed to that - but yes, has to be balanced by social concerns as well.

The thing is - I do believe if a country goes too far towards socialism - drive to succeed and accomplish suffers.

Too far towards pure capitalism - some people who don't deserve it suffer.

So I'm not against capitalism - I think it fosters excellence and achievement. But not pure capitalism.

Mallory

A woman I know is married to a Swedish guy, and they moved to Sweden for a couple of years. She found a lump in her breast. A mammogram was scheduled in 2 months. She couldn't sleep at night because she was so worried and anxious. She ended up flying back to US to get the mammogram, which was done in a couple of days. She said the healthcare in Sweden was not good.

I didn't really believe it, as I thought they had wonderful care. I ended up googling the Swedish healthcare system, and found that it is in terrible disarray. The population is growing older, and they are already taxed at over 50%. The system is a huge waiting game, and very budgeted. I was shocked - and it was a bit of an eye opener.

I am all for some sort of system in the US where everyone is covered - but I'm like everyone else, I don't want to give up this good insured care I am getting! I don't know what the answer is.

elfman

can I ask which sources you got that from?

Tracym

That's the thing I've been saying all along.

People aren't cruel -they're all for having everyone get health care.

They're mostly willing to pay a bit more taxes to help others (although in one of those surveys, the amount was shockingly low - $100).

Like you and I, they are NOT willing to risk their health, their potential suffering, or their lives.

Mallory

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...87022137319357

tons of stuff if you google

Manc

are people afraid it won't work, or that it will?

neil

I personally don't like trusting my health to a company that's all about profit. I'm at the whim of an insurance company whose main purpose in life is to pay out as little as it can get away with. If I get seriously ill I don't want to worry about whether an insurance company will approve treatment. I have very good insurance but I think this should be a worry for everyone. If as much money went on a universal health care system as goes to the insurance companies there would probably be more than enough money in it to give everyone good coverage. I don't like being robbed of my money by insurance companies - just because it's not a figure I see on my payslip doesn't mean it's not a tax. Most people probably don't even know how much companies pay out - if people thought of it as money that could go into their pay they'd probably complain less about higher taxes.

Mallory

Several years ago they tried to introduce the HMO system here. People tried it because the premiums were cheaper. Then they found out that they had to see Dr. X, who could only refer them to Dr. Y. If Drs X and Y said you didn't need to see a specialist, then you didn't get the apt. You had to go to certain hospitals. You had to take certain medicines, and so on. People didn't like it, and most turned back to PPO.

I think people equate universal care with the HMO system of doing things - the gatekeeper system. So people are turned off that type of care. That's the way I see it. Most people that vote have private medical insurance, and they prefer it than going HMO. But as Tracy said, people aren't cruel, they do want everyone covered, but they want theirs to stay the same.

lapin_windstar

Isn't it universal (i.e. not means-tested) in Scotland, or a meringue?

Manc

because people are stupid and ignorant.

Tracym

Well that's a silly question really, nothing to be afraid of it it would work. NOT working well, that's something to worry about.

That's a reasonable worry. There are worries with each system. Thus far, people as a group here, worry more about the potential problems of a govt run system.

Agree entirely - I remember some debacles with HMOs.