I think you missed a huge option in your list which would be “I live in the U.S. and I would prefer another type of health care reform.”
I have read a bunch of other ideas (here and elsewhere) that I believe would be way better than UHC or the program that was passed. Starting with malpractice reform…
Slee
I agree. There are definitely a lot of ways that the current system could be improved without UHC. It’s amazing how much money gets wasted on tests that aren’t really necessary because of the fear of litigation that American doctors live with.
I also feel that the American system doesn’t get enough credit for the things we do right. Why do people bother coming from other countries to have heart surgery at the Cleveland Clinic, neurological treatment at Mayo Clinic, or get cancer treatment at MD Anderson? Our system may not have succeeded in making it possible for every single person to be covered for every illness, but it has allowed a lot of amazing technology and research to flourish and many people do get quite a high level of care.
My problem with answering is that I have no detailed knowledge of the UHC of the USA.
Me ten.
Because the high level needs of the monied few outweigh the lesser needs of the poorer many? :dubious:
Me eleven.
I currently live in a country with a hybrid system (no UHC at primary level except for the elderly and very poor, but hospital stays and certain long-term illnesses are covered by the state) and while everybody except the present Government agrees the system sucks, there is absolutely no interest in adopting a US-type system (by which I mean the pre-Obama system). Even the right-wing opposition party wants health care to be made available to everyone, although in the form of the Dutch model of universal health insurance. The left and centre-left of course support single-payer.
True, but by the same token The UK could therefore claim to have the greatest motor industry in the world because millionaires beat a path to our door for the cutting edge racing technology and design.
You do have a lot of the best cutting edge medical facilities. That only a tiny portion of you populace can access (plus whoever else in the world has six figure sums to spare).
Other countries concentrate more on providing the basics (and more) to the whole country. Not everyone needs a F1 car for their daily commute.
Speak for yourself there. 
Off topic: the UK could claim to have the greatest motor industry in the world for other reasons beyond F1 stuff; there’s also Lotus, Cosworth and so on, which are recognized as the premier authorities on suspension and performance (including, but not limited to, racing) engine development.
Of course, when it comes to building actual cars… no.
This is so far from the truth that it bears absolutely no resemblance to it.
This post (and others like it) are very telling for this poll.
OK, seven figures, not six figures.
What was wrong with my statement? am I wrong? in what way?
I was under the impression that the best care in the states costs a lot of money and that not many people can get access to it.
If you are saying that is not the case then do tell.
Incidentally, A colleague of mine recently had a baby (no charge) that unfortunately was born with a heart defect. She will be monitored by the best heart specialists in the country (no charge) and given the care she requires (no charge). She will continue to get whatever treatment she needs throughout her life (no charge) and will never have to suffer refusal of cover when she reaches adulthood.
Even if she needs lifelong cover and can’t be a “productive” citizen who pays taxes she will get what she needs.
And perhaps the machines that go “ping” are not as shiny over here (more Ford than Ferrari) but be assured they are very capable of doing enough to save that little girl. (and…just in case you didn’t get it the first few times…no charge)
Very true, but I’m sure you recognise the clumsy point that I’m making. Claiming that the US has “the best” healthcare only works for a given (and I’d say narrow) definition of “best”
Problem with the Obama system is that it’s too big, being a Federal system. It’s sheer size may be the whole thing that dooms it to failure. Healthcare should have been done on a basis where it would be administered by the state, but I can understand the historic reasons why that wouldn’t necessarily work.
I am surprised a semi conservative board like this went so overwhelmingly for UHC. Too bad the dems didn’t have the guts to follow through with it.
The vast majority of Americans have access to all the latest in medical technology for only a nominal charge to them plus a monthly charge that is most often subsidized by their employer. Therefore, your statement that only a tiny portion of Americans have access to the American health care system is completely false.
This is basically the same result that occurs in the United states for the vast majority of Americans (not a tiny portion, as you claimed).
Really, truly, Rand? :rolleyes: Your “vast majority” weasel words leaves out millions of Americans. Millions. Millions of Americans who are still dying from a lack of basic healthcare, forget high tech healthcare. Millions who still go to ERs for basic healthcare, which costs all of us more! Millions who still have to declare bankruptcy and/or lose their homes because of humongous medical expenses. Millions who have to decide between buying necessary prescriptions and food. Millions who are still denied coverage for specious “reasons,” like having had acne stopping payment for breast cancer treatment. Even with the reform we got, it does not do enough. We needed reform. We need more reform.
I am very disappointed in Americans like you.
Right, straight question if you are up for it.
Person A, unemployed and living at the poverty level, gets hit by a car and needs a surgery, prosthetics, therapy and lifelong care.
Person B, stockbroker, wealthy, company health insurance and needs exactly the same.
Are you saying that they have equal ability to access that healthcare that they need?
And what do you consider a nominal charge? what are the costs per month that aren’t subsidised by employers? (assuming you have one)
Would you accept that even “nominal charges” and subsidies leave people unable to afford care? That limits are set on the total costs of care to be paid?
I agree with this much of what you say. I, for one, have no experience with the US system of health care.
But having been brought up in a UHC country (Australia), I have also never, ever, heard anyone complain about the system itself. Sure, some people might (rightly or wrongly) complain about specific doctors they saw not being up to standard, or, even being outdated quacks, but I think that might be universal. Also, I’ve never heard anyone in Australia say that, for example, an illness made them poor. Or that because of the benefits they get, they can’t leave the job they hate.
Food for thought.
You can’t be serious.
I have health insurance and I’m grateful - I’ve faced having no health insurance along with a cancer diagnosis - but last year, my husband and I paid out more than 30% of our gross (not net, gross) income in healthcare costs. We have sky-high deductibles and stunning copays on basic prescriptions. That’s hardly a “nominal charge.”
And I know plenty of people who have even higher deductibles, or no access to coverage at all. If everyone you know has fantastic medical care at a nominal charge, perhaps you need to widen your circle of acquaintances to a more diverse group.
Another one for the second choice (Canadian in the U.S. for the last 15 years). What is this up to 12 now and 100% have preferred UHC?