You say "the alternative" as if every other country on Earth has one system, and the US has a second system, and that first system is what we should have. Whereas all those other countries have a bunch of different systems (compare Canada to the UK to France to Singapore). And each of those systems has real tradeoffs for real people. (To be clear: I'd be fine with many, even most, of those tradeoffs, but people who aren't can't be convinced to my side just by insulting them.)
It depends on the treatment. Not all systems offer full cancer treatment, which is really expensive. What the other systems do have is free basic care - you won't be bankrupted if you break your arm or need a gall bladder removed.
It's a myth that all healthcare needs are free everywhere. There's always some diseases that will fall through a net somewhere. This of course does not mean that the situation in the US is not abysmal, just that 'everywhere else has fully free medicine' is a myth.
> People pay taxes that pay for healthcare for every single citizen. No person is without care. (end of comparison).
The Netherlands and Switzerland have a system of compulsory insurance that's closer to PPACA than it is to "pay taxes that pay for healthcare for every single citizen."
Germany has a combination of sickness funds combined with insurance mandates.
Singapore has compulsory health savings accounts.
The US technically has "no person without health care" because you can get it in emergency rooms, and I'll have to spell this out that I think that's a horrible system, but it meets a "no person without health care" checklist.
I think almost any other system would be preferable to the American system, but again they do involve real tradeoffs for real again.
EDIT FOR PARENT EDIT It's definitely not true that no one pays out of pocket for health care in any other country.
> Even single-payer Canada only has 70% of health-care costs covered by the government
I happen to live in Canada. Sure, Canadians pay out of pocket for some health care, like chiropractors and dentists, but it's important to note no Canadian ever went bankrupt or died due to lack of care (the OP) because of a car crash, slipping on ice, or simply getting hit by statistics.
Canadians don't pay out of pocket for things like broken arms or needed surgeries. Also worth noting that applies to the un-employed, mentally disabled, those unable to work, and those too young or too old to work, etc.
You can nit-pick my broad statement all you want, at the end of the day, health care in America is severely, shockingly, disgustingly lagging behind the developed world.
You should note, however, that in OP's case his mother does have some amount of health insurance; her case would very much fall under "no person is without care." It's the fine print of how much care is given in which the problem lies, and there is a fundamental tradeoff here that all countries implement slightly differently. Is the U.S. at the Pareto optimum, if such an optimum exists? Almost certainly not. But there's no guarantee that any other country is at this optimum themselves.
> People pay taxes that pay for healthcare for every single citizen. No person is without care.
There's a bit more variation than that. The main things is: "No person is without health care", but how that care is paid for, varies quite a bit.
Netherland, for example, still has privatized health insurance. Care is paid for through that insurance. The big difference is that, contrary to the US, that insurance is regulated and compulsory. Everybody has to have insurance, and insurers have to accept anyone.
What exactly is covered by the insurance also varies somewhat, but generally prolonged hospital stays and expensive life-saving procedures are completely covered. And that's the big thing, because that's what drives people into bankruptcy.
You say "the alternative" as if every other country on
Earth has one system, and the US has a second system,
and that first system is what we should have.
That's actually fairly accurate. We have a system with 15% of the population without any sort of insurance, whereas 'the other' system provides universal coverage.
The payment details may vary widely from country to country, but it's unconscionable that tens of millions of Americans are an accident or diagnosis away from permanent financial ruin.
The payment details may vary widely from country to country, but it's unconscionable that tens of millions of Americans are an accident or diagnosis away from permanent financial ruin.
I would bump that to "hundreds of millions". Even when you have insurance, most of it's garbage. Health insurance means you're probably OK, but not always.
The PPACA ("Obamacare") outlawed some of the worst garbage insurance plans (that almost qualify as scams) but that left people with no insurance, and the "market solution" isn't working at all.
If the difference is between having your life savings wiped out and going bankrupt, versus having medical costs taken care of, then regular people do not care about the nerdy details.
Main reason I never want to live in America is health care. Just knowing that no matter what I'll be admitted to the hospital and treated is something I never want to live without.
*2nd reason would be gun violence.
First, a federal law called EMTALA requires hospitals to provide emergency treatment regardless of citizenship or ability to pay.
Second, there is more violence in the UK (about 2.5x-3x times as much per capita -- 993 violent crimes/100K vs. 399 violent crimes/100K) than the United States. And more pro-2A decisions from courts have led to a trend of reduction in US gun violence, including DC murders falling below triple digits post-Heller for the first time since 1963. (Of course it's possible that you live in a very peaceful society and view the UK as also having an unacceptable level of violence.)
Now you may or may not choose to ever live in the United States; I don't care and it doesn't affect me either way. But you may want to educate yourself first.
The UK has a violence problem, probably at least in part due to the drinking. I feel less safe in London than LA. But it is crazy to deny that US gun violence isn't a thing.
Nobody is saying that gun violence doesn't exist (though I wonder how much is limited to inner cities in areas none of us want to live in if we have a choice).
But we're talking at cross purposes. The first post talked about violence. The second talked about violence. The third in the sequence, yours, switched the discussion to talk about homicides. Not all violent crimes are homicides.
The frequency of violence in the US is lower, but the death rate due to violence is much higher. Violence seems to be much more lethal in the US, for some reason.
Gun violence vs gun homicide is really just two sides of the same coin. Either way I don't want to be somewhere that chances of being shot go up appreciably, let alone just having a gun pulled on me w/ no shots fired.
Those statistics mean little outside of cohorts. I would wager to guess the murder rate for the class of people who visit HackerNews is 1 per 10,000,000. Being randomly murdered is not a rational fear in America.
Who's sweeping problems under the rug? I'm simply saying it's not something you need to fear, unless you plan to enter the drug trade instead of coding.
Unfortunately we can't fact check your statistics since you didn't provide sources for them, but it's naive and irresponsible to compare "violent crimes" between the US & UK. The definition varies quite substantially - for example in the UK "violent crimes" encompasses harassment (without any physical injury) which to most lay people would not strike them as especially "violent".
The facts are that in 2010, the US had an average murder rate of 4.8 murders per 100,000 people - 4 times higher than the UK’s rate of 1.2 per 100,000. Likelihood of being killed would seem to me to be a more useful indicator of societal violence.
> First, a federal law called EMTALA requires hospitals to provide emergency treatment regardless of citizenship or ability to pay.
Required emergency treatment is just short-term stabilization, it doesn't include the further treatment which may be medically necessary to provide a reasonable chance of good outcomes. This means, approximately, that without ability to pay, your treatment will stop at the point at which you would be admitted to the hospital from the ER.
"emergency treatment" is not the same as the parent's "treated". Patching me up is not the same as taking care of my health.
You seem to be in some kind of denial about the downsides of life in the US. It is great in many ways, but the financial risk of poor health and the gun-related murder rates are not good compared to most developed countries.
You can still think it best overall without going out of your way to deny some serious issues.
At no point will I ever have to write a post like this, because I know I(and my family) will be covered. I don't care what your laws say, the fact that someone is in this type of situation at all just isn't right. Especially in the richest country in the world.
Funnily enough, the first time I ever saw a gun was on a trip to Paris on two military-looking guards when I was in my early 20s. They were pointed level which freaked me out.
Large parts of the US have very little interaction with guns or gun violence except for occasional stories in the news.
Gun violence is not a good reason to avoid the US. It's actually very rare. If you don't get involved in the drug trade and are middle-class are higher, the odds are overwhelming that you'll probably never see a gun fired at a person.
Our healthcare system is terrifyingly bad, however. It's a damn good reason to avoid living here.
No not even that I think. People in the USA perceives any kind of added tax, as money stolen from the state. Most of them do not have the notion of public regarded as something positive.
Let's say it's a very different perception of property, compared to Europe.
I am trying to convince myself that it's not wrong it's just different.
I try to accept the fact that I don't understand their approach and get over with, otherwise turns me kinda crazy.
> People in the USA perceives any kind of added tax, as money stolen from the state.
Hmm? The typical perception (among those who actually share the perception, which is not all Americans) reads more like: additional taxes are money stolen from the people and transferred to the state, whereupon significant chunks of it are wasted by a soulless bureaucracy (and sometimes select corporate sycophants) before the bureaucracy gives the People back a lot of substandard services.
Of course, enough US citizens were willing to vote for certain Congresspeople and presidents that a significant law was recently passed, with the ostensible goal of reforming health care. You may have heard about it as "the Affordable Care Act" or, colloquially, "Obamacare". So be careful with generalizations about American attitudes.
Perhaps study of this law's actual effects will ultimately be able to demonstrate the accuracy or inaccuracy of this perception?
Disclaimer. This post attempts to describe attitudes only, without endorsing or condemning them.
There's no need to raise taxes, just provide universal healthcare. US is already spending as much per capita on public healthcare to European countries![1] This means that instead of tax hikes you would need to use the existing budget for public healthcare to provide free public healthcare to everyone, just like all other countries who provide a "free" public healthcare paid with taxes.
How did they arrive at $4000 per capita on health expenditures? Times 300 million people, that's $1.2 Trillion. DHHS including Medicare and Medicaid was $940 Billion in 2013.
Anyway, I'd love to see a system that reallocated the money that the government is spending right now only on certain groups and used it to provide the best boost to public health it could for all Americans. But you would be running right into the AARP lobby who would frame this as taking care away from seniors. That's a fierce lobby, and you'd need some sort of plan.
I'm European, and I perfectly understand this approach. Increased taxes can go to increased services (and they do, in some countries), or they can go into the pockets of corrupt government officials (which they do, in many other countries). It's insane to pay higher taxes, and see no benefit in return. I often wish my own country had much lower taxes, to "starve the beast", in a way.
The government is in bed with the industry. I don't trust the government with increased power over health care, because they will just screw everyone even more and give money to corporations. I have 0 confidence in the federal government to represent my interests, and that's the only reason I don't want them to have more control over my healthcare costs.
> What your government is currently offering for health care is completely and utterly unacceptable beyond belief. It's your job to make them change it.
Many of us argue that it's reprehensible that government is "offering" healthcare at all. We are protesting, though :)
Really? I've never seen anything on the news about it, yet I see plenty of citizens of other countries in the news because they are protesting things their government is doing.
You must not be protesting loud enough ;)
How can any sane person prefer this over the alternative offered by Developed countries?