Treated for what? I read the article. What I am talking about is my friend in London who has gone through the system and has a grandfather in the system. When he needed emergency care, and it wasn't available, they flew him and a caretaker to Switzerland free of charge, and booked the surgery there. It happened right away. He said waiting for regular appointments, and something with some of the prescriptions are where there are problems. Show the quotes to anyone you would like.
who the hell is trying to impose the healthcare system with the resources and finances of taiwan in america? why would there be not enough expensive drugs? no one is proposing spending less money on medicine. just more efficient. right now its not up to the man who wants to keep fighting, its up to the private hmos. and thats only if he's rich and can afford it. if he's sick and can't work he'll probably lose insurance. what kind of crap is this? in every other industrialized western nation there is a 'socialized' system of healthcare and they are better off in many departments. and especially the less fortunate of them are definitely better off than the less fortunate in the US. try to bring some facts and logic into an argument. not dumb rhetoric that isn't even logical.
Its not enumerated in the Constitution but due to the Hippocractic Oath in practical terms it is. A doctor can't refuse to treat someone if they are dying whether they can pay or not.
many people who are of the civilized educated intelligent variety would submit that it is a right. if public education is a provided by the government surely healthcare should be too. and thats the consensus of every other industrialized nation on earth and many developing nations as well. and that is the viewpoint of a majority of americans. media matters
well the oath is hardly binding...see scottish bombers. but from a product/service angle, it seems like a luxury to me.
yeah. and public education is awesome i am for some type of general healthcare for all...dont get me wrong. I dont want to govt to completely controll it however and there should certainly be options for people. I tend to lean in the direction that some people just completely abuse their bodies and will use a disproportiante amount of resources because they are just too lazy to take care of themselves. If we want to talk about "fairness" that certainly doesnt seem fair. know what i mean?
As I said before entry level jobs that anyone who speaks english and has half a brain can get come with a health plan. Students have it easily accesible. I had it when going to UH for under 800 a year. Why do you want to pay for someones health plan who works part time and has no desire to work anymore?
It seems like you are limiting youself to one place. I guess thats up to you but why would you do that when you can go anywhere? I could have got an appointment within days but chose the one I had to wait for 3 weeks because my Dr. reccomended him.
Food is more necessary for life than healthcare. There are hundreds of thousands of Americans who cannot afford food at a basic level. Should we fund grocery stores with tax dollars and then let everyone take what they need?
see thats the problem in your critique. public education can be a lot better and is failing the minorities in the inner city of our nation. but do you think not having it would be better? i'd hope not, ron paul. i dont think people have heart attacks for fun and to waste resources. and those that do...im willing to pay for it. because i think it makes society as a whole a better place. you're doing exactly what others have accused of governments doing in a public healthcare system. you're trying to judge who deserves healthcare and who doesn't and to what level they should get it. and more critically those that tend to abuse their bodies already use disproportionate public resources in the form of county hospitals emergency rooms. if we have a proper healthcare system we can send them to screenings and preventive care that would reduce the amount of cost significantly and more than pay for itself. here are some statistics. public agenda so apparently hispanics, college students and children, and even people making a comfortable living find it hard to get health insurance. now im sure some of these people could get it but don't, but i'd imagine an overwhelming majority of people would get insurance if they could. because thats what my morals tell me. do you have any? my religion, my values, my education, my parents, my country have taught me that life is sacred and that every person deserves a fair chance. to deprive someone of living simply because we value them as 'lazy' or having less than 'half a brain' is unconscionable. it also makes no economic sense given that the state bears the burden at a far higher rate anyway.
Let me talk to you in a language you should understand. How much $$$s are in each American car sold? in each Japanese car sold? Lack of national health care is putting our major manufacturers at a global disadvantage. This is an economic issue for Big Business.
Food stamps are fine with me, administered at a state level. Similarly, welfare healthcare is fine with me, administered at a state level.
The Japanese automakers make a lot more money on cars built in America and sold in America than cars built in Japan and sold in America.
I think his point would be that Japanese automakers would make even more to the lot more on cars built in America with universal healthcare.
Not true, and not as simple as you make it out to be. But you'll note that 'Sicko' is about those who HAVE coverage and get shafted (sometimes resulting in death) by the insurance companies themselves. For-profit corporations are not the answer. We're letting corporations that have profit as their sole motivation run our healthcare system, and were subsidizing it for them. But again - note that 'Sicko' is not about people who are dumb and lazy and only want to work part-time so they can enjoy that beatiful carefree life that you imagine - the documentary is about people who do everything you do, but had the misfortune to get sick and to get railroaded by the insurance companies. Which is strange don't you think? I mean, obviously these insurance companies have the best interests of their customers at heart. No one would place profit above someone's life, right? You wouldn't do that, would you? So, why would they? ...right? But let's have a look at the implications of your statement: The assumption here is that people who are poor are poor because they're lazy. All those damn lazy 5 year olds. All those damn lazy people suffering from a terminal illness who won't go out and work fulltime at Kroger's. All those damn lazy people who can't afford to attend college because they weren't born with enough money. Your entire supposition is wrong. There are poor lazy people, there are rich lazy people. Lazy is not the reason, but people like to use that to justify their position in the social hierarchy: They're poor because they are lazy and dumb and can't contribute to society, therefore, since I'm not poor, I'm an intelligent hard-worker who is important to society. (get the logic geeks to spell out why that's wrong). Your entire worldview has been pre-fabricated, but you've accepted it readily (you'd even argue that it's your own) because a large part of your sense of self is inextricably intertwined with it. Don't worry, you're not alone. But you're wrong.
There are approximately 18,000 people dying each year due to lack of health insurance. Are there 18,000 people per year starving to death? And as someone else already pointed out the US does provide food assistance for those that need it in the form of food stamps (oh no socialized food, society is collapsing!).
I'm not a doctor but my understanding is that the Hippocratic Oath is binding and that a doctor could lose their accredidation, sued for malpractice and possible suffer other consequences if they don't abide by it.
In a way we do that already with foodstamps. While food isn't a right we long ago decided as a society that there needed to be some sort of governmental response to hunger.
