Michael Moore VS Wolf Blitzer - Round II <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/F91hq6Js9Rs"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/F91hq6Js9Rs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
I had to wait 2.5 months and I have really good coverage and goto Baylor for my medical stuff. It is just like that.
As far as dermatology appointments I've had to wait two weeks, for other doctor appointments in the U.S. I have a friend in England who said he might have to wait a week or two if it is just a regular check up, but if he has any condition or needs anything done, then it is immediate. Furthermore if there is ever a hospital stay required, and hospitals and doctors can't take someone right away, they pay for that person and one other person to accompany them to another hospital anywhere in Europe. Nobody who needs treatment will have to wait. I've used the public health care in New Zealand, and it was top notch. I was in an auto accident there, and I was injured, and my mother's uncle had spinal injuries and had to stay in a hospital for 3 weeks. It was all free, and we received excellent treatment. I was amazed. A 3 week hospital stay, rehab, spinal operations, and casts, plus my shoulder and collar bone injuries all treated and at the end when we were going to work out a payment plan, they just said smiled and said to sign, and that it was all free. Many jobs in the U.S. don't cover insurance, or only cover part. For someone with a chronic condition they can't really buy their own insurance, because the insurance companies won't cover them. The only way they can get in, is from group coverage. The U.S. system is number 37 for a reason. We have great facilities and health care for those that can afford it. I would like to think that our nation is for everyone, including the poor, tired, and huddled masses mentioned on the statue of liberty.
The problem with Healthcare is government involvement. So this fat slob's solution to fixing it? More government. Brilliant.
And that was Richard freaking Carmona that called out the Bush administration. Carmona was no fan of the Democrats during the nomination process and was considered a lightning rod appointment. When he's complaining, there are some serious issues.
If you want, I can find a nearly unlimited number of British individuals who will laugh at this. For immediate refutation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4742977.stm Let me know if this isn't enough and I will start showing your quotes to some British people and eliciting responses.
the projections i trust say that it'll be bankrupt around 2040. so a program that lasts 100 years without major changes isn't a great example? why not? and stop using these vague labels. we dont live in a capitalist free market society. we're all just shades of mixed economies. making taxes less regressive is the answer. and i want to know why a more 'socialist' approach isn't the answer. it works in every western country in the world. and our own example shows us that social security has virtually eliminated poverty in senior citizens, something which was very rampant before it. it has worked incredibly well. the point isn't that canada is perfect. the point is the US is not and we look at what works in other countries and modify it for it to work here. if we spend the same amount of money as we do now, but kill the 20% or so overhead for hmos, etc., we'll have a better level of care than we do now with a system that is comprehensive and covers everybody.
In taiwan the doctors don't get paid unless they give you a prescription. I have a friend who almost died because he was allergic to the medicine they gave him for a dogbite. Also, because it's free people go to the hospital for EVERYTHING. If you think our current healthcare situation is overbooked, you just wait till it's "free." (ie the taxpayers pay for it.)
actually it is. You just don't understand how this is a problem because you've never seen it first hand.
No, it's r****ded because it's based on the anecdotal accounts of you and your friends. Do you think patients aren't killed by medical mistakes in the U.S. system? There is a wealth of data demonstrating that other industrialized countries get significantly better health outcomes than the US with their universal (socialist!) systems and they pay less per capita on health care. If you want to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion provide some concrete evidence that the US is providing superior healthcare to its citizens for the same or less money.
What do you think the uninsured do in our current system? You got it - they go to the ER for everything. That is one of the reasons, for example, that Houston ranked so low in the nation for health care. One of the best networks overburdened by poor uninsured crowding the hospitals.
now imagine everyone (not just the poor) doing that. Do you think the quality of service is going to go up? impossible. Then there is the problem of the doctors deciding who lives and dies. Is it worth it for a doctor to give an 86 year old man an expensive (meaning there aren't very many of them) life-saving drug for cancer when there are 10 people younger than him who also need it? Since the man isn't paying for it anyway it isn't up to him anymore if he wants to keep fighting his cancer or not...it's up to the state who holds the purse strings to his life. What a wonderful idea. euthanasia anyone? I agree American health care has a lot of problems, but I rather like not being just another number when my life is on the line. Besides, the rich would find a way around the system anyway, and the poor wouldn't be any better off than before.....and most likely worse off.
No because I was responding to the question of whether its a good thing for everyone to go to the hospital for every little thing, not whether accidents happen in the US. LEARN TO READ.
Arthritis patients denied drugs http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/545882 10/11/06 Reuters LONDON (Reuters) - Many British arthritis patients are still being denied a new generation of medicines, despite a government pledge four years ago to make them universally available, according to research published on Wednesday. Although the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) approved anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) drugs for rheumatoid arthritis in 2002, access to them still varies widely. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=423274&in_page_id=1770 NHS funding for kids' braces slashed by 20 per cent 12/17/06 The Daily Mail Some news from socialized medicine and dentistry in Great Britain: Parents are being forced to pay thousands of pounds for braces for their children's teeth after the Government slashed the number of youngsters eligible for free treatment. Rationing of orthodontic treatment means more than 7,000 children and teenagers with crooked teeth are being turned down for braces and other corrective dental work each month, orthodontists have warned. Many have no option but to go private - a path that costs their parents up to £4,500 for a set of braces. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Supply and Demand are still at work no matter who pays for what. The government will deny you service because you are nothing but a number.
You misunderstood him. He was saying that poor people go to the ER for everything to get treatment because they don't have insurance. Insured people go to their normal primary care provider for most things and go to the ER only for emergencies.
