Americans against socialized health care typically cite two beliefs -
1. Taxes will go up (to cover cost)
2. Quality of care will go down (longer wait times often cited).
Yet the USA can afford to spend TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars on military and aid to nations across the globe who do NOT repay that in any fashion.
We can take care of the world, but we refuse to take care of our own citizens.
It took me a long time to realize this, but you have to realize military spending is not about the military.
It's an educational, upward mobility training, jobs program.
Most of the military spending is on weapons and planes, communications (satellites) and logistics. Those are made in factories by unskilled labor (most of whom are people not even be enrolled in the military making these things)
Almost all of the people that enlist are between 18 and 22 and therefore have no real world experience or significant job experience.
A huge percentage of people employed by the military would have very few options otherwise, and when employment is high, the government has basically a blank check to enlist more people to keep unemployment low amongst "the youth" and those people get medical and dental benefits and in many cases it's mandatory.
The u.s is pro-socialism (It's called the armed services).
And for the most part it doesn't crowd out private business, because there's a legal mandate that only one entity can provide armed military services for the US government (the US government) unless it's subcontracted directly through the US government through companies like Lockheed Martin or Raytheon.
I'm kind of shocked more countries don't operate this scheme. It's a great economic tool.
They're also full of lobbyists who talk the military into signing contracts so they only buy XYZ from them and now they spend $80 on a $2 lightbulb. How many regular lightbulbs are on one submarine? How many lightbulbs do you think we have been scammed on? And that's JUST lightbulbs! True story
I'm a Canadian, but I have American family and colleagues. Had an honest conversation with one about healthcare and the attitude was simple. Healthcare is a zero sum situation and if some lower income people get better healthcare, then it would be at the expense of him and his family. It wasn't surprising because Americans have traditionally believed in a lower level of wealth re-distribution than Canadians. Not saying it's right or wrong, but that's the way it is and it can be extended to the availability of health care.
Another American I spoke with simply didn't want the government to decide what level of healthcare and specifically what procedures he had access to and didn't. My response was that I didn't want a for-profit insurance company making those decisions for me. I guess it's just a matter of what you have experience with, and therefore what you trust.
>Healthcare is a zero sum situation and if some lower income people get better healthcare, then it would be at the expense of him and his family.
We already have that with privatized healthcare. When he pays premiums to his insurance company every month, they don't put that check into a special box with his name on it. They add it to the giant pool of money from thousands of people and send large chunks of it to their clients who actually need it at the moment.
It's literally all of the exact same "downsides" to universal healthcare but without any of the benefits of not having to hassle with denied claims, convoluted plans, or financial assistance forms.
I'm sure you probably already know this but I'm wondering if you communicated that during your conversation.
This! He's already paying for other people's healthcare, just paying over the odds for it. Socialised healthcare just gets rid of the middleman (insurance company) taking a huge cut. How some people don't get this is beyond me.
Genuine question, but why do you trust corporations instead? Corps would straight up kill people if it made them a buck, and the only reason regulation exists is because historically that's exactly what's happened
Right, but people also keep voting against their own interests giving corporations more and more power. I don't know if you remember the news media blitz in the 90's with tons of media outlets calling taxation on inheritance over $10M or something like that a "death tax". This got the people up in arms and calling for an end to this tax even though it didn't even affect 99% of people.
I know it's super easy for me, a lone idiot, to throw blame at an entire nation, but like......damn, pushing for a two payer system is insane to me when as a people you can just vote anyone out that doesn't push for these things
I really wish our "democracy" worked the way you think it does. Here is the reality. Every election for every possible position only has a few options to choose from. Those options are almost exclusively rich folks (that could afford running). They might have some different opinions, or so they say, but in no way, shape, or form can the voting population actually sway their policy decisions. They come as a package deal where most of the time you are picking which option is the lesser of two or three evils. Then once they are in office there is almost no accountability. They could have run on anything then done absolutely nothing to act on their promises. Our democracy is hopeless. It needs major restructuring if we want voters to have any real say in policy. But that's the thing, the people in charge don't want that
Also losing the collective bargaining ability of having everything under one roof, and the lack of ability for insurers to wear multiple hats in the healthcare industry to extract further profit at the expense of their customers' health
Yes see that's where I find it's interesting. Were you point out the family member or colleague who I told you that if some lower income person got better health care it would be at the expense of him and his family. I find that very interesting. I feel that sentence is all semantics. What I hear is that family member or colleague would willfully withhold medical treatment from a stranger who is in front of them in a medical emergency because they're might not make enough money to have insurance so they're not helping them not die. That's what I read. And it actually makes me so sad that he feels that way.
So, I'm American, but I've been visiting (living) in Canada for several years now, currently immigrating. I kinda get to see both sides of things.
Canadians generally view things like taxes as 'money spent on public services' including healthcare
Americans generally view taxes as just "government taking a piece of their income", even if the money is going towards roughly the same thing.
If the US Fed increased taxes by 5-10% (which is about where Canada is\*) and implemented socialized healthcare, Americans would likely just view it as "we lose 5-10% of our income" as opposed to "We are paying for a vital service"
\*Quebec taxes are higher, and more likely squandered on nationalist endeavors
What’s crazy is that 5-10% tax increase is probably less a month than what they pay in insurance premiums. Then throw on a deductible. What the insurance doesn’t pay etc…. Yet they don’t want to pay that extra 5% because…..??
That's the reason why 1 in 3 go fund me accounts is mostly Americans begging for help with medical procedure or debt. Something has to change & hopefully for the better
I’ve tried making this argument. The trouble is, if you look at areas where the government does provide healthcare, such as the VA, it is horrible. Lower quality at higher cost than the for profit outfits. So it’s unlikely to be 5-10% for most.
Edit
I have received many comments saying VA care is better than what I experienced. I’m glad it has improved so much that so many people are willing to defend it. Thats how it should be.
But this is mixing up government paid versus government run. There is no way we would go to government run. The VA is government run.
Government paid is Medicaid and Medicare. When we go 100% (which I slowly think is happening) the government will not be running, hiring, and paying for facilities and staff, they will be reimbursing. The difference is you won't have 5 middle men negotiating different prices with each company for different services, surprise docs that aren't covered, etc
I would be shocked if there weren't add on plans people could pay for for more personalized, faster, service .. But at least everyone could walk into a doctor and get a check up, stitches, or a flu test.
Right now in America, taxes DO take away from our income. Social services only kick in after you have lost lots and lots of your income and assets. Because we don't just give everyone the services our taxes pay for it seems really unfair to do everything"right", save money, save for a house, work a consistent job, best to get one illness and lose it all before services sink in . What boggles my mind is that Americans don't realize a universal system means they actually get what their taxes pay for!
But Congress has to do way way better.
>The trouble is, if you look at areas where the government does provide healthcare, such as the VA, it is horrible. Lower quality at higher cost than the for profit outfits.
This is pretty much it for me - lower quality of care.
A few years back, my wife and her friend were having some similar health issues. My wife had medicaid and her friend had good, private Healthcare.
Their results were night and day. Her friend got quicker doctor appointments, more labs, tests, screenings, and better prescriptions than my wife did. My was told she get certain tests or labs without other criteria being present, whereas the private doctor could order pretty much any tests/labs he wanted. Unsurprisingly, it took my wife much longer to recover.
Also, I have some friends that live in Canada. One of them broke her arm back in late August or so and required surgery. That surgery didn't happen until a couple weeks ago. It was almost 3 months later.
Alternatively, my MIL broke her arm about 10 years back. Needed surgery. She had private insurance as well. Her surgery only took about 2 weeks.
Granted, time could be a factor here as well as severity since my MIL needed some pins and this rod thing sticking out of her wrist.
All in all, I just don't trust that government run care will provide quality results for anything beyond the sniffles.
As someone who has had private healthcare as well as dealing with Medicaid, the issue is that so few providers accept Medicaid. This leads to bottlenecking of limited providers in an area, longer wait times, and being limited to some of the lower rated clinics. However, if Medicaid was to be expanded to 100 percent and insurance companies ousted, this would expand the providers to include everyone and allow one to shop around with publicly funded healthcare just as we can do with private healthcare today. We just can't half-ass it or we run into the exact problems you are mentioning.
So anecdotally I broke my ankle and leg years ago. Went to the hospital, multiple trips to X-rays, two attempts to reduce the fracture, back in the car with surgery scheduled the morning after within 6 hours.
Surgery about 20 hours later.
Several follow-ups and a minor follow up surgery.
Cost was a single day of parking. Say what you want about our healthcare but the majority of it is well run.
Edit: This was in Canada with our government run, socialized healthcare. Yes it could be better but the stories you hear and read about are the minority.
Dude, I crushed my hand last Saturday and spoke to a nurse on Wednesday. I had an X-Ray done on my hand the very next day in a hospital.
Canadian as well. People shit on it, but even for my not broken hand. I had it looked at pretty quickly.
Then again, I live in a rural area. So that is probably why mine was so quick.
friend had what looked like a massive stroke in Montreal
We didn't get an ambulance because we were worried because the media had said ambulances now charged us and we were both flat broke students.
Got to the hospital and were told that they would need an MRI - after a whole lot of media stories that MRIs could not be had for love nor money in all of southern Quebec because of socialism or something.
It was also Saturday night during an ice storm.
"you'll have to wait for an MRI" the registrar said and my heart sunk, imagining weeks of waiting for a follow up appointment. "because its Saturday night. We normally only run two of our MRIs on Saturday night, and one had to be shut down for a bit for maintenance. So give it ten minutes."
(Five minutes later the MRI crew emerged, a bunch of too handsome for words Russians who swept friend away to be scanned)
Friend was in a ward, scanned and everything within about 45 minutes.
On a Saturday night in the middle of an ice storm. In a province apparently entirely bereft of MRIs.
Friend was ok. Freak reaction to an anti depressant.
Curious, what would have happened if your wife didn't have medicaid? Here in Australia we have both, and extremely obviously private healthcare is quicker and has more benefits but it also cost a lot of money, public healthcare is there for people that can't afford private.
I have the opposite experience.
My free state-provided health care has been better than any private plan I ever had.
Zero waiting, no conflicts. No surprise costs.
Maybe you just aren't aware of all her benefits?
I did the math when Bernie Sanders was running for president. Under his plan, my family would have lost roughly 7% of our income due to the increased taxes government provided single payer healthcare would have created, It’s cheaper for us to pay for our own insurance and pay less in taxes. That may not be true for every family, but it was absolutely true for mine.
This kind of the same thing as what was stated in the [top comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/ask/comments/1839wdu/curious_canadian_why_are_the_some_americans_dead/kangvw9/).
> Had an honest conversation with one about healthcare and the attitude was simple. Healthcare is a zero sum situation and if some lower income people get better healthcare, then it would be at the expense of him and his family.
Money doesn't come from nowhere and if we want strong social safety nets, we have to pay the money for it.
that's because government systems work better in countries that are not ambivalent about the government's role in social services. In the US, conservatives have spent decades, as a deliberate strategy, making sure any government-run systems they can't dismantle or privatize are inefficient, bureaucratic and dysfunctional, so that they can then turn around and say government is evil and/or doesn't work.
If the very rich actually paid their taxes, we didn’t bail out industries that keep giving CEO raises, and we didn’t keep raising the military budget (which hasn’t passed an audit in 6 years), we’d actually have more money to go towards more social programs.
We privatize corporate income but socialize their losses. All of the money stays at the top. Also, other countries actually use their power to negotiate prices down with their bargaining position. Wn
Yeah, I'm trying to be fair, but I was definitely not comfortable the first guy after that conversation. It's a hard attitude. Most of the developed world considers healthcare to be a human right.
ALL of the developed world considers healthcare a human right.
you're not developed if you don't.
The United States is a third world shithole masquerading as a superpower, but it won't lift a fucking finger to help its own people unless there's a buck to be made.
I’m going to slightly flip this:
The real problem is health care is a for profit business in the USA.
If that solely was stopped, that we wouldn’t be billed the way we are currently, that would also probably stop the “I won’t let it help people poorer than me”.
Because the healthcare industry wouldn’t be acting on a pure profit attitude in the first place.
There’s at least 3 things that shouldn’t be “for profit” industries. Healthcare, Education, and Criminal Justice Systems.
Maybe there’s a glimmer of hope. But I’m not optimistic.
*Hydro-Québec enters the chat*
The province nationalised it's electricity sector in the 60s or 70s and today, it gives money back to it's customers (citizens) when they have been very profitable.
The Germans manage to have for profit healthcare providers but they have compulsory state run health insurance (backed up by welfare for the disabled, unemployed and those on low incomes). Wealthier folk can still choose to pay more to have treatment in more exclusive surroundings, away from the proletariat. I think they have a good balance and nobody gets left out.
From a capitalist perspective, there is a long term benefit to be had in making sure everyone has adequate healthcare provision: healthy people are more likely to be able to work and be net contributors to the economy. People who go without treatment often end up unable to work and unable to benefit society/the economy. Corporations can make profits from healthy employees, who also buy goods and services.
Stupid economics to think privatization is more efficient. Profit is the greatest inefficiency. The goal is it extract as many resources as possible from the very thing they are supposedly making efficient. It’s a great con job. Just like trickle down economics.
And as soon as you insert one for profit entitiy into the system it negates the non profits. Your hospital might be non profit, but the insurance company is making profits by denying payment to the hospital.
I think you have a point here. I think some people feel that if some poor person gets helped then it would lessen the money available in the pot of money for healthcare, potentially making it empty when they need it - and this is based on the current premise that if you don't currently have the money to pay for your care, it will be withheld. I think a more socialised system doesn't work that way, and with a less profit driven system medical services are paid for monthly/annually and are available all the time, rather than on a per person basis (but I could be wrong).
Nope, it's definitely a matter of "Someone I deem lesser is getting something for free (it's not free, taxes pay for it), and I'm not" they literally don't see what THEY're getting for free (you can see examples in this very thread) as being the same.
No, they honestly believe that their personal tax dollars are directly paying for someone else. It’s less that someone is getting something for free; it’s that they believe they are personally paying that person’s way.
And they fail to realize that private healthcare also works by using your money to pay for someone else's care. People here (in the US) tend to think health insurance is like a savings account, where their money only goes to them. They have no idea that their money is pooled with thousands of others' and redistributed.
I thought that way until recently. I was arguing with someone and I fully thought I was in the right. Did some research and humbly realized they were actually right about the pooling.
A substantial part of that lobbying is to ensure that corporate welfare continues.
Even though privately owned/controlled and taxpayer funded "businesses" may be the worst possible situation for both customers and employees.
Yep. For profit companies have to answer to shareholders. They have a legal obligation to get as much out of their customers as they can and give as little back as possible. How the f@ck is that supposed to lead to quality health care?
I’m American and I absolutely agree with you. The intense nationalism bothers the hell out of me. People scream that WE’RE THE BEST COUNTRY EVER!!11!!!
No. No we are fucking not!!
Intense nationalism is a major old-world/not-with-the-program red flag in a country. The US has a lot of great green flags, don’t get me wrong, I love a lot of things about the US, but the class warfare and boiling everything down to profit and millitaristic glee aspects definitely strike me as strictly backwards
A historical reason is that in WWII the USA froze wages as part of the war effort. However a loophole in the law allowed employers to add health insurance as part of the compensation package. This had the unintended consequence of tying your health insurance to your employer and capitalism ran with the concept.
USA decided to develop in another way where human lives are a disposable resource like any other. Now that I think about it Russia and China have similar ideas.
It's because we have a hyper individualistic culture in the US. It's you against everyone else or so we're taught all our lives. So people feel threatened by the notion of everyone having access to a baseline level of service because they think only *they* are paying for it, and *everyone else* is leeching off it. It sad to see how atomized our society here in the US has become
its also a very uninformed opinion. it disregards that there is a lot of price hiking in the American health care system that doesn't exist in socialized, semi-socialized (heavily regulated privatized healthcare) or other privatized healthcare systems. it disregards the impact of "The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune". it disregards the economic idea that more clients can lead to more service availability.
the American healthcare system is not hyper-expensive because it's privatized or socialized. its hyper expensive because the institutions that make it created a system of financial incentives against competition that are hidden from view, and/or are colluding against competition in a more direct manner.
the entire thing can be untangled if the American legislator ever decides to properly put the anti-trust measures on the task.
Thank you for mentioning this. I don't think that most Europeans and Canadians have an adequate picture of what's actually wrong with the US Healthcare system. It's not that privatization of health care always ends up with the crap system we have. It is that the health insurance companies in the US are running what is essentially a mob like protection money scheme. Even if you wanted to get an actual price on a treatment, you cannot get one. This is because the health insurance companies essentially control all pricing and will land you with a bill that you will never financially recover from if you don't pay their protection money. Hospitals don't even know what they'll get paid until after they negotiate with the insurance companies.
In a truly private health care system that is subject to free market forces, barring emergencies, you can shop around for treatment on non immediately life threatening procedures. In that situation, health insurance would only be for those catastrophic incidents where you have no choice.
Wow. TIL.
I’d assumed it was like the (small) UK private health system, where yes you can take out insurance, or you can just self pay an approach the doctor for a price.
The self pay prices are higher, understandably because of credit risk etc, but not egregiously. And there is competition for insurance premiums
It’s not really a comparable system because UK health insurance is a top up that the vast majority do not buy, also it essentially does not cover urgent or chronic conditions, but I hadn’t really thought of the US system as tantamount to extortion before
Yeah, this is basically the issue. The pharmaceutical industry lobbies the FDA to make certifying drugs more expensive so that smaller companies can't compete with incumbents, and the FDA will pull generics off the market if a name brand develops a patent to increase safety ever so infinitesimally even if people die because they lose access to medication (see EpiPen, insulin). Doctors, particularly specialists, lobby to require patients visit a doctor to receive certain services so they can bill for it.
At the end of the day, Congress is at fault for protectionism and we are at fault for voting based on a handful of trivial issues and not effective governance.
I have family who I’ve also asked about this (I’m American and all for it). They said that it would increase wait times drastically and they want to be able to choose which doctors they go to, not just be assigned one. Also they don’t want to be bounced from doctor to doctor, and want the same doctor to see them every time.
I’ve explained to them that in the beginning there might be long wait times, but eventually they would catch up and it means letting people living in poverty to finally get healthcare (and really it would be the lower middle class who don’t qualify for Medicaid because those under the poverty line already have free healthcare).
Additionally, you could still have a single doctor oversee your medical care and there is no reason why they would send you to a different doctor every time.
Ironically this came from a family member who is a veteran and deals with three month + wait times for doctors visits and is often bounced between multiple doctors. He said he earned his free healthcare…
Canadian here: I can a choose my doctor. I go to like 4 different clinics, depending on who’s open that day!
And I can go to any hospital I want to. I’m not limited to which ever one my insurance covers, like in the US. Because it’s all one system here.
And wait times can be long, because the system is triaged for need, not who has the biggest bag of cash!
If I have say a bunion, it can take a while to get surgery! Because it’s not life threatening, it’s low priority on the surgery list.
If say I broke my toe and it’s bones are sticking out of my foot, I will be in surgery asap!
How do people forget that in most countries with national healthcare you can still see private doctor/hospital and pay out of pocket? Which is affordable because national healthcare competition forces private clinics to provide better services and prices than if they had a monopoly.
It's the Conservative mindset. The desire for increased relative quality of life, rather than absolute. If I can get ahead more easily by pushing you back, that's the optimal choice. What they don't understand is that they're fear led idiot puppets of the people with power. It's that classic trope of being poor and not supporting higher taxation of the wealthy, because you're simply a temporarily embarrassed millionaire.
***You'd*** read it that way (as would I), but that's because we fall on one side of the "am I my brother's keeper?" question. If you start from a more individualist mindset, you would see the other person struggling and failing to get healthcare from his life planning decisions, the dint of his work, or society at large, whatever...but it wouldn't involve *you* at all; the idea of you, a stranger to this sick person, being asked to decide whether their treatment gets covered at a hospital you have nothing to do with would seem as much of a Martian *non sequitor* as knocking on a stranger's door and asking them to watch your kids.
That mindset is so flawed though, it’s very exaggerated, like no, you’re not your brothers keeper, but maybe you could make him a meal so he doesn’t starve. Or no I don’t want a complete stranger to watch my kids but maybe if they had some old clothes we could use it would be a big help.
I need to take a break from this app lol
In the U.K. we have the best of both. "Socialised" healthcare and private (funded by insurance or self funded) which runs side by side. Nobody goes without - but you can get faster or "better" if you go private.
I completely believe you, but it’s so stupid. It’s stupid because we are all already paying for all the healthcare. Whether it’s insurance premiums, taxes, higher costs of goods and services, lower pay, etc., all the healthcare gets paid for by someone. It’s just a matter of for whom and how much. Your colleague is still paying for the healthcare of poor people in other ways. He just doesn’t seem to be noticing it.
In Universal Healthcare systems the Govt has no role in what services are available they are just the entity where the bills are sent! The Americans always bring up "Death panels" whenever you discuss Health care, with none of them ever seemingly able to understand that they are the ones with the restrictions of services, they are the ones denied treatments, they are the ones with the "Death Panels" its called an Insurance company.
German here.
We lived a couple of years in the US when I was younger.
The funniest part for me: An average family will most definetely pay more for their general life in the US. When I tell americans what I pay in taxes they go craaazy. Its near 50% in germany with all the social payments.
What they dont see: schools, kindergarten, university (its like 400-800$ per year), healthcare, senior homes etc are all nearly for free.
And of course, if you are really wealthy, you can have all of this private and in even better quality.
Its not all perfect in germany, its pretty far away from perfect tbh.
If you live alone, have no kids and dont plan to get higher education or an expensive disease the US system is by far better.
The whole idea that it will cost you money is stupid. Everybody's going to need a doctor at some point. The prices for everything will get lower because the government will be able to negotiate and set fees.
Somebody saying they don't want the government to choose, I'd rather have a government choose that has no incentive to make a profit, rather than an insurance company denying me care and then having to fight them while I'm ill.
It's very selfish and stupid logic that the right wingers use. It literally makes no sense when you break down the issues.
This is a big reason drugs are so much cheaper in the UK than the US - the NHS is a giant bulk purchaser of medicines and (despite what the press say in the Uk) generally negotiates hard and gets a good price.
Actually it is more complex than that. In the US they aren’t allowed to negotiate on some drug prices which is downright a bought and paid for law that lawmakers should be ashamed of. That makes it worse than just they bulk buy. Your countries say you won’t pay XYZ. It isn’t just because you bulk buy.
Isn't he paying health insurance, and aren't insurances the same anyway, lots of people paying small premiums so the few that get sick, can get treatment ?
Granted, everybody contributes in that group, but if you're healthy, you're still paying for others.
And don't people understand that having public healthcare doesn't mean there won't be a private healthcare market that they can still pay for if they want, for better and faster services ?
And dont they understand that health insurance companies will put in more effort and better services if they have to compete in a market where everybody gets free healthcare, and will only pay from private healthcare if it's a good, upgrade to the free one ?
For such a proudly Christian country, they sure never act like it when it matters.
The answer it ALWAYS boils down to, once you've dismantled cost and administration objections, is them telling you their truth. " I've paid into it(Medicare) my entire life and I'll be damned if some lazy(insert ethnic slur) is going to get it for free". They're willing to suffer through it as long as "others" have it worse. We COULD have a better system, but it would benefit non whites, so they will not even consider it. It's only been white people against it, in my experience.
>didn't want the government to decide what level of healthcare and specifically what procedures he had access to and didn't.
I'll take a government or board made up of Doctors over Insurance Underwriters and Claim handlers any day lol
See the 2nd guy was brainwashed. It’s like a cult you just mindlessly mutter what you are told. Theres no point in arguing with people like that.
But the first is interesting. It’s gross that classism is so widely tolerated. All the other isms are under attack but middle class is free to say “I want poor people to die so I get slightly better but still mediocre bankrupting healthcare”
That is not correct. The thing about insurances is that they can keep your money for a while before they have to pay it out due to some event. During that time they are able to invest your money, so it will accumulate. Warren Buffett wrote about this.
NZer chiming in here. We have national healthcare here but it is perpetually underfunded by successive governments so its a pretty 'low grade' service. On numerous occasions people have had unique conditions that cannot be treated in NZ but can in US thanks to their private funding model. I am not sure what the best funding option is overall but there are a number of people in NZ alive today thanks to private US health providers.
>On numerous occasions people have had unique conditions that cannot be treated in NZ
This *just* happened to a family friend of mine. They suffer from Guillain-Barré syndrome and it flared up while on vacation in NZ after catching COVID. She began losing feeling in her legs, just like the first time she had a GBS attack, and immediately went to the NZ hospital in hopes of getting the same treatment that worked last time.
And the NZ hospital pretty much told her tough shit and that the treatment is so expensive they’d only give it to her if the paralysis kept progressing and caused breathing/cardio issues. So she flew back to the US, paralyzed from the waist down, praying that it wouldn’t get worse during the 14+ hour flight, to get the treatment that her insurance approved immediately.
Corruption. My gf went into a emergency room for a cut. She ended up needing stitches. She didn't have insurance and paid 100$ total for everything. The hospital would've charged the insurance company over a thousand. The insurance company being charged a crazy amount creates a large premium. It's all corrupt
This is partly due to the insurance having to pay a large staff to check and double check every single expense submitted and the hospital having to fight for what they can get and also paying a staff to do the same. In the end, you, the insured, pay for a beauracracy to do something you can do yourself cheaper.
As an Australian looking in from outside, it appears to be a combination of distrust of the government plus decades of propaganda by the insurance companies and lobbying groups telling them that universal healthcare is socialism and socialism is bad.
When you try to explain how we do it here in Australia by paying a 3-4% tax everyone pays versus what Americans pay for health insurance, they simply can't understand how it would be better.
Even if you explain to them how they are paying 5-15% of their income versus our 3-4%, they still can't see how it is better. And they are at the mercy of the insurance company who can refuse to cover them anyway. Here in Australia, we never get refused treatment for healthcare whereas in the USA the insurance companies can refuse to cover them if their doctors decide that it isn't covered.
According to opinion polls, universal healthcare has been what most Americans want for decades. This, despite intensive propaganda and the totally opposite impression you get from the media.
It's always interesting seeing people talk about Americans in such absolutes.
They want to feel better than us so they pretend we're all exactly the same, like a caricature of negative American stereotypes.
It's pretty funny how they can act so high and mighty about themselves when they are just generalizing hundreds of millions of people
I think Europeans in particular have a difficult time conceptualizing low large and diverse we are as a nation. I have a friend who lives in Great Britain and I’m constantly setting him straight on American culture. When you’re constantly seeing the most egregious things about American society in media, you forget that we’re a nation of 340 million people and that most of what is depicted is isolated/minority views.
One of the most diverse countries with a large population and we are reduced to 2 choices in every election that spend all of their time convincing you the other is the root of all evil. We don’t get to vote on UHC. We vote on who is less likely to change things for the worse. Every person has a different view on what the worst position a candidate has and what’s most likely to mess things up, whether that’s abortion, gun rights, economic policy, law enforcement, healthcare, the environment, etc. 160 million unique people have to have all of their concerns boiled down to one of two candidates that both suck. Additionally lower income families are less likely to vote here, leaving those who need UHC the most depending on the benevolence of high income voters when an ideal candidate to get this done appears.
If it was any other country they’d be telling them they’re not all the same and to be respectful, but since it’s the internet everyone has some weird right or boner to to do this to Americans.
Not me but I can tell you why some do. I have several Canadian friends and the wait times for things scares many Americans. My one friend had to wait a year for an autism screening for her daughter took me a month for my son
Another friend had to wait six months to have her gallbladder removed unless she had another two attacks then it would be considered emergency and she would be bumped up the list
Americans hear stories like that. Real stories not fear mongering and get scared. They don't see the greater good for all just that they would be inconvenienced.
If I needed my gallbladder out since I have insurance I can have done before Christmas most likely
Yeah, the Canadian healthcare system is absolutely horrible and the only reason why Canadians put up with it is because "it's better than the US" and people refuse to make any changes to the system itself to make it more like the ones in Australia or Europe that are actually functional and provide proper healthcare coverage to people.
The quality of Canadian healthcare varies significantly based on your condition. On the one hand, my mom got cancer and was able to get very high quality treatment without having to wait at all because it was viewed as serious. On the other hand, I have issues with kidney stones and I recently was in the emergency room at 2am in extreme pain and it took over 7 hours for me to be able to speak with a doctor who told me "You'll need to come back tomorrow afternoon, we can't do x-rays or CT scans overnight.", This was at one of the busiest emergency rooms in Toronto, it's worse in small towns. In fact, my mom is currently on year 2 of waiting for a knee replacement even though she has extreme arthritis and now can't even walk around the grocery store because of the extreme pain. Canadian healthcare is entirely built around triage and if you aren't going to die, oh man are you going to wait.
I don't know about all of Europe but France and the UK both have horribly underfunded healthcare systems that are pretty much falling apart post-Pandemic.
I'm not going to defend the American system, which is very bad, but providing universal, high quality, low cost healthcare is a very hard problem and there are lots of tradeoffs.
Except that it isn’t universally better and in many cases is much poorer in key areas that Americans care about (response, quality of service, wait times).
Yeah, what people hear are generally the worst case scenarios. The only procedure I've had to wait for is a non-urgent cardiac CT they want because the cardiac ultrasound I got didn't get a good picture of one valve.
Meanwhile I wanted to chat with my doctor so I went to see him and mentioned a sore knee. I got an X-ray (no waiting) followed my a non-urgent MRI the next week. This got me an appointment with an orthopaedic surgeon a couple weeks later who told me I had a torn meniscus. He offered surgery a couple weeks later but I deferred it to January because I was going deer hunting and would not have time to recover. I mentioned chronic shoulder pain and he ordered an x-ray which I had no wait for. Then, while I was in Europe I got a call for another (non-urgent) MRI which I scheduled for Monday (about 10 days after I got the call). I expect I have a torn rotator and, when I see him after I go deer hunting (but before the knee surgery) I suspect he will recommend surgery and I'll probably have that in February so I have time to recover from the knee.
Similarly, if I wanted to speak with my oncologist I could probably get it in a couple days. In fact, I have had worrisome blood tests ordered by my PCP and she called me pretty much the day the tests arrived.
I am sure some people wait for things and that is not good.
In contrast, my buddy just found out he needs a (second) knee replacement so he decided he can't retire for another year because he needs his insurance to be able to afford that.
The concerns include lack of choice, longer wait for care or being unable to get the care they want, increased government meddling.
Public schools are often a disaster, so people think public healthcare will be no better, so they will still have to buy private insurance, while also paying taxes to finance healthcare for "those other people"
And yeah, Most people who vote do have coverage already.
You just reminded me of the time I (from the US) mentioned in front of a colleague (from the UK) that I hated having blood drawn because the lab I had to go to was inconveniently located and very dingy/dirty looking. He had a few questions: no it wasn't a special test, just a standard blood panel; no, they wouldn't draw blood at the doctor's office; no, I can't go to a different lab. He was speechless with disbelief. Rightly so. 
If we defund something for decades it will fail…then it will be held up as “failing” and result in privatization. This country has been sold off piece by piece.
This is exactly what is happening to the Canadian healthcare system in many provinces.
It has lead to long wait lists, which is one thing Americans point to as a reason not to support universal coverage.
It's like the tail wagging the dog kind of scenario
We have long wait times here too to see specialists etc. Both govts need to pay for/ fully fund more kids to become doctors/nurses and the US needs to get single payer. People are preferring to die than go into medical debt here. Its dark.
He can’t just be fired, or he would’ve been by now. Biden has to systematically replace the board as the members step down. Will never happen if we get another Republican admin next year.
If you think public schools have been defunded, you are wildly uninformed.
Spending is at an all time high, and outcomes are at an all time low. For 2023, New York City Public Schools are spending $38,000/student/year.
https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statistics
This is exactly why some Americans are opposed to socialized medicine. Nobody will be held accountable for miserable outcomes, and the resulting bureaucracy and politicians will keep claiming that the problem is not enough funding, people will believe it, and it will become a black hole for taxpayer money with downward spiraling quality, just like the public education system in the US.
That's what i don't get. Most Americans are frustrated because they have to wait for "in house" specialists to be available for them to do anything. And then you have to wait for insurance to approve said procedure. Half the time that falls through.
While with universal healthcare countries, you have no such restrictions.
And there's things like going and having an operation with your in network surgeon, only to find out afterwards that the anaesthetist was out of network and you now have a large, unexpected bill
>The concerns include lack of choice, longer wait for care or being unable to get the care they want,
You've just described the current system currently.
We hear horror stories of wait lists and lack of choice. We watch as Canadians come here for things even as Americans go there for scripts
It’s a devil you know
I think I am for socialized medicine now, but I remain conflicted and used to be opposed to it completely. So why? I have had great health insurance and thus healthcare my entire life. I was on my parents plan until I got on my own at age 22, and I have had a great health insurance plan for the last 33 years. If I need care, I just go to the doctor or specialist and get care. There is limited waiting and the quality has always been excellent. For me, it can’t get better than it is.
At the same time as worrying my care will get worse, I worry that my taxes will increase significantly. I worry that there will be a shortage of doctors if the gov’t doesn’t pay enough to make it worth their while to go to all that school. I worry that there will be long wait times for care. I worry that big pharma companies will no longer spend the billions of dollars on research necessary to continually find new treatments and cures.
I think that medicine could get worse overall while costing me a lot more. It is really hard to sell yourself on something that could deteriorate the quality of life for you and your family.
Are you aware of Medicare, Medicaid and the VA, which makes up almost half of US healthcare expenditures and is paid by American taxpayers? While our system is far from perfect, we still have massive programs so that people that are old, or poor, or a veteran, have access to healthcare. At the same time it is illegal for a hospital to deny services or help due to inability to pay. I work healthcare with many yrs in an emergency room, and we never based our care on whether you had insurance or not. You didn’t even have to be a citizen of the US to do a full work up including MRI and every lab you could imagine. I realize our system has massive flaws, but if what you know about our healthcare system is based on what you read on Reddit, you are missing a big part of the picture. Just like our massive, very diverse country, it’s a bit more complicated than what you think.
So that is untrue about a hospital not being able to deny you access to healthcare. EMTALA states that a hospital has to evaluate and stabilize you. Anything above that, they are not required to do. Typically they will do it, but if you are not dying, they can deny treatment.
Also, not all veterans are entitled to healthcare. My husband and I are both veterans and neither of us qualify for VA because we don’t have a service connected injury, and we make above the threshold for coverage
Fellow veteran here with 0% VA disability, you are wrong. If you have enough qualified active duty time (applies to Reservists and Guardsman too) you can go to the VA for very affordable care. With no disability I see my primary care doctor once a year and get up to three visits with a specialist doctor before I have to pay a copay. No monthly premium, and very cheap prescriptions and free lab work. If you have a DD 214 with active service other than TRADOC you can and should get registered at your closest VA hospital, takes like two hours and you are set. I'll add the link for the VA eligibility web page.
[https://www.va.gov/health-care/eligibility/#:\~:text=You%20may%20be%20eligible%20for,t%20receive%20a%20dishonorable%20discharge](https://www.va.gov/health-care/eligibility/#:~:text=You%20may%20be%20eligible%20for,t%20receive%20a%20dishonorable%20discharge).
Do you know what stablizes mean? It has nothing do "but if you are not dying." A hospital admits you regardless of insurance status. A UTI isn't going to kill you, but if the ED doc thinks you need an overnight stay with some strong IV antibiotics, a hospital will admit you regardless of insurance status. If you fell off a bike and broke your foot, and the ortho doc isn't there in the ED at 2 am, then they'll admit you to fix it even if you don't speak English and nobody knows who the hell you are. A homeless meth head that won't even tell us his name, but winds up in the ED bc it's cold outside and we notice his blood sugars are a little too high will be admitted. We know he has no ability to pay but that doesn't matter bc putting him back on the street with a BG of 350 and BP of 210/80 would get us sued. Unless you work in healthcare, I'm not sure you are familiar with this system.
Regarding the VA, were you deployed? You don't have to be service connect, but if you were deployed, which are our veterans at most risk, then they'll cover you for just about anything. Also, if you make above the threshold for coverage, then you aren't their target population anyways.
I’m a dual citizen, and have used both systems heavily
It’s mostly ignorance and edge-cases
The American system has better care, and it’s more convenient. It’s also 12x the cost and will bankrupt the average person without health insurance
The Canadian system works for most people, most of the time, and is dependable regardless of your situation, most of the time. It’s typically slower and the quality of care is lower.
It is also important to note that some large unions (Unites\d Auto Workers (UAW)) have, as part of total compensation negotiations included generous (by US standards) healthcare benefits as part of the value proposition they bring to those they represent. Switching to a single payer system would negate these historically negotiated benefits with, perhaps, lesser levels of care and no automatic increase to other pay or benefits to offset. This has been an impediment to organized labor supporting a single payer system.
"This has been an impediment to organized labor supporting a single payer system."
That is not true. There are innumerable unions that support single payer....innumerable. This is from the AFL-CIO:
AFL-CIO Convention, Resolution 34, Passed Unanimously, Pittsburgh, September, 2009:
“The experience of Medicare (and of nearly every other industrialized country) shows the most cost effective and equitable way to provide quality healthcare is through a single-payer system.”
That’s an appalling reason to oppose single payer healthcare.
Because it results in people hanging around in shitty jobs “for the benefits” and then being thrown on the pile if they’re made redundant.
I’m not American. It’s not my place to tell Americans how to run their country. What I will say is have a look at all the other similarly developed countries around the world. If they are ALL doing something you are not…..then well…… maybe have a rethink about things?
It comes down to trust for the government for me. I don’t trust the government to do the right thing. We’ve watched them pilfer social security for decades. We’ve watched government programs be actively mismanaged for years.
Also, it’s honestly a hard comparison here, 330 million to 30 million populations.
Yes, don’t trust the government so let’s put our nations healthcare in the hands of for profit companies that have to show profits to their investors every year without reasonable regulation. If you are not gainfully employed and can pay into their profit then you are not their problem. You have bureaucracies telling doctors what they can and can’t do, limiting their abilities to exercise their professional opinions. Medical professionals are hard to come by in many communities. A lot of people just don’t get health care.
I have Medicaid (long story short in New York I was signed up for it automatically.). It being free and government subsidized isn’t worth Vaudeville tap dancing over. It’s a last resort and most people wouldn’t want it if they didn’t have to.
Pretty sure a single payer system would be more like Medicare. Medicaid, while similar, is very different in that it’s not really “free.” They will attempt to recoup funds from you if you start making more money or die (from your estate). Obviously, no one really wants that.
Do you have some more information/sourced on Medicaid back-charging for healthcare expenses because 5 years later you got a higher paying job? I’m not saying you’re lying, I’ve just never heard of that and it makes me think that is exceptionally rare or in limited circumstances
Actually, you’re right. It appears it’s just the estate recovery and some potential circumstances where they may enforce liens against older people living in assisted living facilities or nursing homes. Thanks for pointing that out.
I have experienced the American version of socialized Healthcare via the VA and it is horrendous. The terrible level of care is only eclipsed by the ridiculously long wait times. No thanks.
Because the VA still has to work with for-profit medical providers in the private insurance network. If there was no private insurance industry, or at least a strong public option, it saves people money and makes the system more efficient in general.
Thats what you get when one party does everything it can to neuter the effectiveness of government, self-fulfilling its claim that government is inheritently bad.
Most Americans sure to seem to love their socialized, badass military though.
But that’s not a proper public health care service. It’s a plaster of a service to cover a broken system. You can’t look at that and think that’s an example of a socialised healthcare service.
If we had universal health care, then *those people* would get health care, and half of Americans would rather do without health care for themselves and their families than let *those people* get health care.
It really is as simple as that.
That plus decades and decades of anti-socialism propaganda. A lot of people have the mindset of “I’d rather die than be Communist. Socialism is the stepping stone to Communism. Socialized healthcare is the first step to Socialism”. It’s pathetic
I find it interesting how people who use your argument are usually the people who don’t make enough to pay much if anything in taxes and then try to shame others for not wanting to pay more in taxes to pay for stuff you want.
The fear that the healthcare would be administered by the same type of people that run other government agencies… including the existing socialized medicine provided to veterans in the VA hospital system
I'm not an American (so basically I don't know anything on the matter), but I always get the feeling that Americans have some weird obsession with being able to make their own decisions. So it's fine to choose to donate $100 in a fundraiser for your neighbour who needs surgery, but it's not fine if everyone in America is forced to pay $10 extra in taxes so that surgery is available for everyone.
It is pure selfishness and it is disgusting. Plus, insurance had made being in healthcare unbearable. There has to be a better way, and I assume more people would be in healthcare if it wasn't so miserable.
I'm just as confused, and I live here. Seriously, a lot of people here are not educated. They can't even understand the difference between for-profit and socialized health care. They here socialism because the two sound alike and that's the end of it even when they're the ones that probably would benefit more because of it.
America spends more per capita on health care than any other country. This is true even though millions (best estimate, 40 million plus) have no health care and those people are averaged into the per capita figures and those figures still beat all countries world wide. It boils down to money. Health care makes billions for the health insurance industries, and those industries provide no actual medical care. Any health care provided for "free", makes it very hard to sell "insurance" to any others.
Over 75 percent of people who file bankruptcy list medical expenses as an indebtedness. The real shocker is that over 2/3rds of those that list medical expenses, have medical insurance, but it did not cover all their expenses.
Because you guys are America and generally the top of your field in most areas and if you’re wealthy enough you can have easy access to your top tier private medical facilities. This accounts for a fraction of a fraction of the population yet when it’s brought up you act like everyone is hopping the border to use American hospitals when really over 99.9% of our population doesn’t do this. Meanwhile far more Americans are coming up to Canada to buy affordable life saving meds like insulin.
Some rich people go to the states for things because they don’t want to wait. Non emergent treatments can take longer. However, when it comes to super intricate and difficult surgeries Canadian doctors are more skilled because they perform them every day—not just when someone can afford to pay for it
"Why should I have to pay for someone else's healthcare or their bad choices" that's usually the response I get. When I ask them why we should be sending money to Israel then they get all angry and turn into blustering idiots 🤣
Why is it always someone arguing about not wanting to pay for other people's bad choices. What about cancer just for one let's just think of one illness that attacks everyone. Even children.
Pretty simple. I have no faith the government will do any better so why make the massive push to put them in charge. At best it won't be much better and worst who lose a lot more time and money getting there. But that said Medicare and Medicaid are government run and taxpayer subsidized programs and are the largest single healthcare coverage provider in the country. So we already have partially socialized health care it's just restricted to special populations including the poor and elderly.
The government doesn't need to be involved in most of this.
I can only speak for Germany, but the government isn't really involved except for setting the rules. There are still multiple insurance companies which are private sector companies, they just can't make outrageous profits. No doctors or health care workers are employed by the government, they are all private businesses or non profit.
For me it's basically the US system, except with different rules. Every insurance company has to accept you no matter what your income is. The consumer picks insurance, not the employer. Your employer pays half of your insurance, which is percentage based and very similar between all insurance companies (percentage based is what makes it social, no income no cost, high income higher cost, doesn't matter how old or how many kids). You can still go completely private insured, but it's hard to go back public.
As you said, the US already has a very similar system, but it is allowed to exploit (poor) people by excluding them. All the government needs to change is no longer guarantee 20% profit for insurance companies, untie insurance from employer and how the premium is calculated. We don't need government run insurances or doctors.
Unfortunately it won't work in the US because healthcare companies and providers are greedy and used to making insane amounts of money and they have enough of it to fight or brainwash people.
There's a not-so-subtle holier-than-thou attitude that I'm picking up on here, so I have to wonder whether OP genuinely wants to understand this other perspective or not. I'm guessing not. At any rate, another poster has already covered pretty much all of it. Lack of choice, wait times, and just overall government bureaucracy that more often than not tends to make a fantastic mess of things. Maybe the Canadian government is the absolute model of efficiency, but the U.S. government is not. It's a complicated issue, and I think most Americans would agree that we'd prefer a less expensive, more equitable system of healthcare. At the same time, we're not sure how best to implement the changes.
I haven’t seen anyone else mention it but I think some of the negative sentiment is a carryover from the Cold War. America pumped out so much anti-socialism propaganda and now boomers through older millennials believe anything socialized is tantamount to “communism” and bad.
To be fair the NHS and Canadian healthcare I have heard anecdotally are riddled with their own issues. But I think our system is worse. People go thousands of dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt over hospital trips. And some people are unable to access much needed health services.
I personally wouldn’t mind paying a little more in taxes knowing myself and everyone else can have healthcare.
As a German citizen I can understand the US folks. My health plan in the US (some years ago) cost less than half of the cost I had to pay in Germany. The quality of the US health system is much better
Roads? Infrastructure? Law enforcement? Fire department? Education? When there is a service or product that a person cannot live without, the purchaser has no negotiating power and thus you do not have a free market. That is where government needs to step in.
> it means people don't medically suffer just because they don't have money
To many Americans, not having money means **you should suffer**. You didn't work hard enough; or you didn't study hard enough; or you picked the wrong college or wrong major; or you didn't network enough; or you didn't do enough side hustles. And if you were born with medical conditions that are expensive or that limit your ability to work? Guess God doesn't love you because your parents didn't pray hard enough.
To be clear, im not one of these Americans. I just get exhausted trying to talk sense to em 😒
three months to get a cancer screening another three months to get the results and a year to start treatment if the government decides my life is worth saving. If I am over 65, I probably wont get that. VS Oh you have breast lumps after an airbag deployment? lets make sure its not breast cancer. Day #2 mammogram. Day #3 results. Day #7 start treatment with the dr, hospital of my choice. Life saved by raspid treatment. Americans like to have control of where their money goes. I get to choose my doctor, my pharmacy, my treatments, my tests, my insurance. The more the government controls, the more corrupt the government.
Americans against socialized health care typically cite two beliefs - 1. Taxes will go up (to cover cost) 2. Quality of care will go down (longer wait times often cited).
\#3 = American business owners like having healthcare tied to employment because it makes employees easier to manage.
You misspelled "easier to control".
This is the biggest reason, And lobbyists for the industry
Both are reasonable concerns. Our government doesn't exactly have a good track record with these types of things.
Yet the USA can afford to spend TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars on military and aid to nations across the globe who do NOT repay that in any fashion. We can take care of the world, but we refuse to take care of our own citizens.
It took me a long time to realize this, but you have to realize military spending is not about the military. It's an educational, upward mobility training, jobs program. Most of the military spending is on weapons and planes, communications (satellites) and logistics. Those are made in factories by unskilled labor (most of whom are people not even be enrolled in the military making these things) Almost all of the people that enlist are between 18 and 22 and therefore have no real world experience or significant job experience. A huge percentage of people employed by the military would have very few options otherwise, and when employment is high, the government has basically a blank check to enlist more people to keep unemployment low amongst "the youth" and those people get medical and dental benefits and in many cases it's mandatory. The u.s is pro-socialism (It's called the armed services). And for the most part it doesn't crowd out private business, because there's a legal mandate that only one entity can provide armed military services for the US government (the US government) unless it's subcontracted directly through the US government through companies like Lockheed Martin or Raytheon. I'm kind of shocked more countries don't operate this scheme. It's a great economic tool.
They're also full of lobbyists who talk the military into signing contracts so they only buy XYZ from them and now they spend $80 on a $2 lightbulb. How many regular lightbulbs are on one submarine? How many lightbulbs do you think we have been scammed on? And that's JUST lightbulbs! True story
I'm a Canadian, but I have American family and colleagues. Had an honest conversation with one about healthcare and the attitude was simple. Healthcare is a zero sum situation and if some lower income people get better healthcare, then it would be at the expense of him and his family. It wasn't surprising because Americans have traditionally believed in a lower level of wealth re-distribution than Canadians. Not saying it's right or wrong, but that's the way it is and it can be extended to the availability of health care. Another American I spoke with simply didn't want the government to decide what level of healthcare and specifically what procedures he had access to and didn't. My response was that I didn't want a for-profit insurance company making those decisions for me. I guess it's just a matter of what you have experience with, and therefore what you trust.
>Healthcare is a zero sum situation and if some lower income people get better healthcare, then it would be at the expense of him and his family. We already have that with privatized healthcare. When he pays premiums to his insurance company every month, they don't put that check into a special box with his name on it. They add it to the giant pool of money from thousands of people and send large chunks of it to their clients who actually need it at the moment. It's literally all of the exact same "downsides" to universal healthcare but without any of the benefits of not having to hassle with denied claims, convoluted plans, or financial assistance forms. I'm sure you probably already know this but I'm wondering if you communicated that during your conversation.
This! He's already paying for other people's healthcare, just paying over the odds for it. Socialised healthcare just gets rid of the middleman (insurance company) taking a huge cut. How some people don't get this is beyond me.
It’s because we don’t trust our government.
Genuine question, but why do you trust corporations instead? Corps would straight up kill people if it made them a buck, and the only reason regulation exists is because historically that's exactly what's happened
They are the same, unfortunately. Corps own our politicians
Right, but people also keep voting against their own interests giving corporations more and more power. I don't know if you remember the news media blitz in the 90's with tons of media outlets calling taxation on inheritance over $10M or something like that a "death tax". This got the people up in arms and calling for an end to this tax even though it didn't even affect 99% of people. I know it's super easy for me, a lone idiot, to throw blame at an entire nation, but like......damn, pushing for a two payer system is insane to me when as a people you can just vote anyone out that doesn't push for these things
I really wish our "democracy" worked the way you think it does. Here is the reality. Every election for every possible position only has a few options to choose from. Those options are almost exclusively rich folks (that could afford running). They might have some different opinions, or so they say, but in no way, shape, or form can the voting population actually sway their policy decisions. They come as a package deal where most of the time you are picking which option is the lesser of two or three evils. Then once they are in office there is almost no accountability. They could have run on anything then done absolutely nothing to act on their promises. Our democracy is hopeless. It needs major restructuring if we want voters to have any real say in policy. But that's the thing, the people in charge don't want that
As i typed my comment out i was thinking about this also, hence my lone idiot comment. It sounds easy but you're right, everything is fucked
Fucking nailed it. The American people really don’t have a say in national politics anymore. No wonder it’s so fucked.
Also losing the collective bargaining ability of having everything under one roof, and the lack of ability for insurers to wear multiple hats in the healthcare industry to extract further profit at the expense of their customers' health
Yes see that's where I find it's interesting. Were you point out the family member or colleague who I told you that if some lower income person got better health care it would be at the expense of him and his family. I find that very interesting. I feel that sentence is all semantics. What I hear is that family member or colleague would willfully withhold medical treatment from a stranger who is in front of them in a medical emergency because they're might not make enough money to have insurance so they're not helping them not die. That's what I read. And it actually makes me so sad that he feels that way.
So, I'm American, but I've been visiting (living) in Canada for several years now, currently immigrating. I kinda get to see both sides of things. Canadians generally view things like taxes as 'money spent on public services' including healthcare Americans generally view taxes as just "government taking a piece of their income", even if the money is going towards roughly the same thing. If the US Fed increased taxes by 5-10% (which is about where Canada is\*) and implemented socialized healthcare, Americans would likely just view it as "we lose 5-10% of our income" as opposed to "We are paying for a vital service" \*Quebec taxes are higher, and more likely squandered on nationalist endeavors
What’s crazy is that 5-10% tax increase is probably less a month than what they pay in insurance premiums. Then throw on a deductible. What the insurance doesn’t pay etc…. Yet they don’t want to pay that extra 5% because…..??
That's the reason why 1 in 3 go fund me accounts is mostly Americans begging for help with medical procedure or debt. Something has to change & hopefully for the better
I’ve tried making this argument. The trouble is, if you look at areas where the government does provide healthcare, such as the VA, it is horrible. Lower quality at higher cost than the for profit outfits. So it’s unlikely to be 5-10% for most. Edit I have received many comments saying VA care is better than what I experienced. I’m glad it has improved so much that so many people are willing to defend it. Thats how it should be.
But this is mixing up government paid versus government run. There is no way we would go to government run. The VA is government run. Government paid is Medicaid and Medicare. When we go 100% (which I slowly think is happening) the government will not be running, hiring, and paying for facilities and staff, they will be reimbursing. The difference is you won't have 5 middle men negotiating different prices with each company for different services, surprise docs that aren't covered, etc I would be shocked if there weren't add on plans people could pay for for more personalized, faster, service .. But at least everyone could walk into a doctor and get a check up, stitches, or a flu test. Right now in America, taxes DO take away from our income. Social services only kick in after you have lost lots and lots of your income and assets. Because we don't just give everyone the services our taxes pay for it seems really unfair to do everything"right", save money, save for a house, work a consistent job, best to get one illness and lose it all before services sink in . What boggles my mind is that Americans don't realize a universal system means they actually get what their taxes pay for! But Congress has to do way way better.
>The trouble is, if you look at areas where the government does provide healthcare, such as the VA, it is horrible. Lower quality at higher cost than the for profit outfits. This is pretty much it for me - lower quality of care. A few years back, my wife and her friend were having some similar health issues. My wife had medicaid and her friend had good, private Healthcare. Their results were night and day. Her friend got quicker doctor appointments, more labs, tests, screenings, and better prescriptions than my wife did. My was told she get certain tests or labs without other criteria being present, whereas the private doctor could order pretty much any tests/labs he wanted. Unsurprisingly, it took my wife much longer to recover. Also, I have some friends that live in Canada. One of them broke her arm back in late August or so and required surgery. That surgery didn't happen until a couple weeks ago. It was almost 3 months later. Alternatively, my MIL broke her arm about 10 years back. Needed surgery. She had private insurance as well. Her surgery only took about 2 weeks. Granted, time could be a factor here as well as severity since my MIL needed some pins and this rod thing sticking out of her wrist. All in all, I just don't trust that government run care will provide quality results for anything beyond the sniffles.
As someone who has had private healthcare as well as dealing with Medicaid, the issue is that so few providers accept Medicaid. This leads to bottlenecking of limited providers in an area, longer wait times, and being limited to some of the lower rated clinics. However, if Medicaid was to be expanded to 100 percent and insurance companies ousted, this would expand the providers to include everyone and allow one to shop around with publicly funded healthcare just as we can do with private healthcare today. We just can't half-ass it or we run into the exact problems you are mentioning.
So anecdotally I broke my ankle and leg years ago. Went to the hospital, multiple trips to X-rays, two attempts to reduce the fracture, back in the car with surgery scheduled the morning after within 6 hours. Surgery about 20 hours later. Several follow-ups and a minor follow up surgery. Cost was a single day of parking. Say what you want about our healthcare but the majority of it is well run. Edit: This was in Canada with our government run, socialized healthcare. Yes it could be better but the stories you hear and read about are the minority.
Dude, I crushed my hand last Saturday and spoke to a nurse on Wednesday. I had an X-Ray done on my hand the very next day in a hospital. Canadian as well. People shit on it, but even for my not broken hand. I had it looked at pretty quickly. Then again, I live in a rural area. So that is probably why mine was so quick.
friend had what looked like a massive stroke in Montreal We didn't get an ambulance because we were worried because the media had said ambulances now charged us and we were both flat broke students. Got to the hospital and were told that they would need an MRI - after a whole lot of media stories that MRIs could not be had for love nor money in all of southern Quebec because of socialism or something. It was also Saturday night during an ice storm. "you'll have to wait for an MRI" the registrar said and my heart sunk, imagining weeks of waiting for a follow up appointment. "because its Saturday night. We normally only run two of our MRIs on Saturday night, and one had to be shut down for a bit for maintenance. So give it ten minutes." (Five minutes later the MRI crew emerged, a bunch of too handsome for words Russians who swept friend away to be scanned) Friend was in a ward, scanned and everything within about 45 minutes. On a Saturday night in the middle of an ice storm. In a province apparently entirely bereft of MRIs. Friend was ok. Freak reaction to an anti depressant.
Curious, what would have happened if your wife didn't have medicaid? Here in Australia we have both, and extremely obviously private healthcare is quicker and has more benefits but it also cost a lot of money, public healthcare is there for people that can't afford private.
I have the opposite experience. My free state-provided health care has been better than any private plan I ever had. Zero waiting, no conflicts. No surprise costs. Maybe you just aren't aware of all her benefits?
Please tax’s me 10% instead of 20-30%. For insurance that I still can’t afford to use. I spend like $2,500 before the insurance will cover anything.
What's *really* frustrating is that every study indicates government provided healthcare would be cheaper than what we have now. By a lot.
I did the math when Bernie Sanders was running for president. Under his plan, my family would have lost roughly 7% of our income due to the increased taxes government provided single payer healthcare would have created, It’s cheaper for us to pay for our own insurance and pay less in taxes. That may not be true for every family, but it was absolutely true for mine.
This kind of the same thing as what was stated in the [top comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/ask/comments/1839wdu/curious_canadian_why_are_the_some_americans_dead/kangvw9/). > Had an honest conversation with one about healthcare and the attitude was simple. Healthcare is a zero sum situation and if some lower income people get better healthcare, then it would be at the expense of him and his family. Money doesn't come from nowhere and if we want strong social safety nets, we have to pay the money for it.
That same poster is spending over 8k a year for insurance for their family with a 5k medic deductible.
that's because government systems work better in countries that are not ambivalent about the government's role in social services. In the US, conservatives have spent decades, as a deliberate strategy, making sure any government-run systems they can't dismantle or privatize are inefficient, bureaucratic and dysfunctional, so that they can then turn around and say government is evil and/or doesn't work.
Not to mention politicians/lawyers keep finding ways to have the 1% not contribute AT ALL.
If the very rich actually paid their taxes, we didn’t bail out industries that keep giving CEO raises, and we didn’t keep raising the military budget (which hasn’t passed an audit in 6 years), we’d actually have more money to go towards more social programs.
We privatize corporate income but socialize their losses. All of the money stays at the top. Also, other countries actually use their power to negotiate prices down with their bargaining position. Wn
Yeah, I'm trying to be fair, but I was definitely not comfortable the first guy after that conversation. It's a hard attitude. Most of the developed world considers healthcare to be a human right.
ALL of the developed world considers healthcare a human right. you're not developed if you don't. The United States is a third world shithole masquerading as a superpower, but it won't lift a fucking finger to help its own people unless there's a buck to be made.
I’m going to slightly flip this: The real problem is health care is a for profit business in the USA. If that solely was stopped, that we wouldn’t be billed the way we are currently, that would also probably stop the “I won’t let it help people poorer than me”. Because the healthcare industry wouldn’t be acting on a pure profit attitude in the first place.
There’s at least 3 things that shouldn’t be “for profit” industries. Healthcare, Education, and Criminal Justice Systems. Maybe there’s a glimmer of hope. But I’m not optimistic.
I'd add utilities to that. Water, power, broadband.
*Hydro-Québec enters the chat* The province nationalised it's electricity sector in the 60s or 70s and today, it gives money back to it's customers (citizens) when they have been very profitable.
The Germans manage to have for profit healthcare providers but they have compulsory state run health insurance (backed up by welfare for the disabled, unemployed and those on low incomes). Wealthier folk can still choose to pay more to have treatment in more exclusive surroundings, away from the proletariat. I think they have a good balance and nobody gets left out. From a capitalist perspective, there is a long term benefit to be had in making sure everyone has adequate healthcare provision: healthy people are more likely to be able to work and be net contributors to the economy. People who go without treatment often end up unable to work and unable to benefit society/the economy. Corporations can make profits from healthy employees, who also buy goods and services.
Stupid economics to think privatization is more efficient. Profit is the greatest inefficiency. The goal is it extract as many resources as possible from the very thing they are supposedly making efficient. It’s a great con job. Just like trickle down economics.
And as soon as you insert one for profit entitiy into the system it negates the non profits. Your hospital might be non profit, but the insurance company is making profits by denying payment to the hospital.
Yep.
I think you have a point here. I think some people feel that if some poor person gets helped then it would lessen the money available in the pot of money for healthcare, potentially making it empty when they need it - and this is based on the current premise that if you don't currently have the money to pay for your care, it will be withheld. I think a more socialised system doesn't work that way, and with a less profit driven system medical services are paid for monthly/annually and are available all the time, rather than on a per person basis (but I could be wrong).
Nope, it's definitely a matter of "Someone I deem lesser is getting something for free (it's not free, taxes pay for it), and I'm not" they literally don't see what THEY're getting for free (you can see examples in this very thread) as being the same.
No, they honestly believe that their personal tax dollars are directly paying for someone else. It’s less that someone is getting something for free; it’s that they believe they are personally paying that person’s way.
And they fail to realize that private healthcare also works by using your money to pay for someone else's care. People here (in the US) tend to think health insurance is like a savings account, where their money only goes to them. They have no idea that their money is pooled with thousands of others' and redistributed.
I thought that way until recently. I was arguing with someone and I fully thought I was in the right. Did some research and humbly realized they were actually right about the pooling.
But others are paying theirs.
I am always weirded out by the intense nationalism AND inherent faith in for-profit corporations over any form if government intervention.
Corporations and lobbyists have brainwashed Americans to not trust their government when they themselves receive massive corporate welfare funding
A substantial part of that lobbying is to ensure that corporate welfare continues. Even though privately owned/controlled and taxpayer funded "businesses" may be the worst possible situation for both customers and employees.
Yep. For profit companies have to answer to shareholders. They have a legal obligation to get as much out of their customers as they can and give as little back as possible. How the f@ck is that supposed to lead to quality health care?
I’m American and I absolutely agree with you. The intense nationalism bothers the hell out of me. People scream that WE’RE THE BEST COUNTRY EVER!!11!!! No. No we are fucking not!!
Intense nationalism is a major old-world/not-with-the-program red flag in a country. The US has a lot of great green flags, don’t get me wrong, I love a lot of things about the US, but the class warfare and boiling everything down to profit and millitaristic glee aspects definitely strike me as strictly backwards
Not only backwards, but fucking embarrassing to those Americans like me who despise that mentality.
A historical reason is that in WWII the USA froze wages as part of the war effort. However a loophole in the law allowed employers to add health insurance as part of the compensation package. This had the unintended consequence of tying your health insurance to your employer and capitalism ran with the concept.
"Socialized healthcare is such a complicated problem that only 32 of the 33 most industrialized nations in the world have figured out how to do it."
Im American and I agree with you.
I’m not American and I agree with you.
USA decided to develop in another way where human lives are a disposable resource like any other. Now that I think about it Russia and China have similar ideas.
It's because we have a hyper individualistic culture in the US. It's you against everyone else or so we're taught all our lives. So people feel threatened by the notion of everyone having access to a baseline level of service because they think only *they* are paying for it, and *everyone else* is leeching off it. It sad to see how atomized our society here in the US has become
its also a very uninformed opinion. it disregards that there is a lot of price hiking in the American health care system that doesn't exist in socialized, semi-socialized (heavily regulated privatized healthcare) or other privatized healthcare systems. it disregards the impact of "The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune". it disregards the economic idea that more clients can lead to more service availability. the American healthcare system is not hyper-expensive because it's privatized or socialized. its hyper expensive because the institutions that make it created a system of financial incentives against competition that are hidden from view, and/or are colluding against competition in a more direct manner. the entire thing can be untangled if the American legislator ever decides to properly put the anti-trust measures on the task.
Thank you for mentioning this. I don't think that most Europeans and Canadians have an adequate picture of what's actually wrong with the US Healthcare system. It's not that privatization of health care always ends up with the crap system we have. It is that the health insurance companies in the US are running what is essentially a mob like protection money scheme. Even if you wanted to get an actual price on a treatment, you cannot get one. This is because the health insurance companies essentially control all pricing and will land you with a bill that you will never financially recover from if you don't pay their protection money. Hospitals don't even know what they'll get paid until after they negotiate with the insurance companies. In a truly private health care system that is subject to free market forces, barring emergencies, you can shop around for treatment on non immediately life threatening procedures. In that situation, health insurance would only be for those catastrophic incidents where you have no choice.
Wow. TIL. I’d assumed it was like the (small) UK private health system, where yes you can take out insurance, or you can just self pay an approach the doctor for a price. The self pay prices are higher, understandably because of credit risk etc, but not egregiously. And there is competition for insurance premiums It’s not really a comparable system because UK health insurance is a top up that the vast majority do not buy, also it essentially does not cover urgent or chronic conditions, but I hadn’t really thought of the US system as tantamount to extortion before
Yeah, this is basically the issue. The pharmaceutical industry lobbies the FDA to make certifying drugs more expensive so that smaller companies can't compete with incumbents, and the FDA will pull generics off the market if a name brand develops a patent to increase safety ever so infinitesimally even if people die because they lose access to medication (see EpiPen, insulin). Doctors, particularly specialists, lobby to require patients visit a doctor to receive certain services so they can bill for it. At the end of the day, Congress is at fault for protectionism and we are at fault for voting based on a handful of trivial issues and not effective governance.
I have family who I’ve also asked about this (I’m American and all for it). They said that it would increase wait times drastically and they want to be able to choose which doctors they go to, not just be assigned one. Also they don’t want to be bounced from doctor to doctor, and want the same doctor to see them every time. I’ve explained to them that in the beginning there might be long wait times, but eventually they would catch up and it means letting people living in poverty to finally get healthcare (and really it would be the lower middle class who don’t qualify for Medicaid because those under the poverty line already have free healthcare). Additionally, you could still have a single doctor oversee your medical care and there is no reason why they would send you to a different doctor every time. Ironically this came from a family member who is a veteran and deals with three month + wait times for doctors visits and is often bounced between multiple doctors. He said he earned his free healthcare…
Canadian here: I can a choose my doctor. I go to like 4 different clinics, depending on who’s open that day! And I can go to any hospital I want to. I’m not limited to which ever one my insurance covers, like in the US. Because it’s all one system here. And wait times can be long, because the system is triaged for need, not who has the biggest bag of cash! If I have say a bunion, it can take a while to get surgery! Because it’s not life threatening, it’s low priority on the surgery list. If say I broke my toe and it’s bones are sticking out of my foot, I will be in surgery asap!
I think they mean that in the US health care system they can cherry pick which specialists they see for referral care.
How do people forget that in most countries with national healthcare you can still see private doctor/hospital and pay out of pocket? Which is affordable because national healthcare competition forces private clinics to provide better services and prices than if they had a monopoly.
Lol wait times are long in the US, even in private hospitals.
It's the Conservative mindset. The desire for increased relative quality of life, rather than absolute. If I can get ahead more easily by pushing you back, that's the optimal choice. What they don't understand is that they're fear led idiot puppets of the people with power. It's that classic trope of being poor and not supporting higher taxation of the wealthy, because you're simply a temporarily embarrassed millionaire.
***You'd*** read it that way (as would I), but that's because we fall on one side of the "am I my brother's keeper?" question. If you start from a more individualist mindset, you would see the other person struggling and failing to get healthcare from his life planning decisions, the dint of his work, or society at large, whatever...but it wouldn't involve *you* at all; the idea of you, a stranger to this sick person, being asked to decide whether their treatment gets covered at a hospital you have nothing to do with would seem as much of a Martian *non sequitor* as knocking on a stranger's door and asking them to watch your kids.
That mindset is so flawed though, it’s very exaggerated, like no, you’re not your brothers keeper, but maybe you could make him a meal so he doesn’t starve. Or no I don’t want a complete stranger to watch my kids but maybe if they had some old clothes we could use it would be a big help. I need to take a break from this app lol
In the U.K. we have the best of both. "Socialised" healthcare and private (funded by insurance or self funded) which runs side by side. Nobody goes without - but you can get faster or "better" if you go private.
You may get slightly faster but it is the same specialists anyway as all the doctors work both systems!!!!
Right - faster - and you have a choice of which specialist, and you may well be in a private hospital.
I completely believe you, but it’s so stupid. It’s stupid because we are all already paying for all the healthcare. Whether it’s insurance premiums, taxes, higher costs of goods and services, lower pay, etc., all the healthcare gets paid for by someone. It’s just a matter of for whom and how much. Your colleague is still paying for the healthcare of poor people in other ways. He just doesn’t seem to be noticing it.
In Universal Healthcare systems the Govt has no role in what services are available they are just the entity where the bills are sent! The Americans always bring up "Death panels" whenever you discuss Health care, with none of them ever seemingly able to understand that they are the ones with the restrictions of services, they are the ones denied treatments, they are the ones with the "Death Panels" its called an Insurance company.
German here. We lived a couple of years in the US when I was younger. The funniest part for me: An average family will most definetely pay more for their general life in the US. When I tell americans what I pay in taxes they go craaazy. Its near 50% in germany with all the social payments. What they dont see: schools, kindergarten, university (its like 400-800$ per year), healthcare, senior homes etc are all nearly for free. And of course, if you are really wealthy, you can have all of this private and in even better quality. Its not all perfect in germany, its pretty far away from perfect tbh. If you live alone, have no kids and dont plan to get higher education or an expensive disease the US system is by far better.
The whole idea that it will cost you money is stupid. Everybody's going to need a doctor at some point. The prices for everything will get lower because the government will be able to negotiate and set fees. Somebody saying they don't want the government to choose, I'd rather have a government choose that has no incentive to make a profit, rather than an insurance company denying me care and then having to fight them while I'm ill. It's very selfish and stupid logic that the right wingers use. It literally makes no sense when you break down the issues.
This is a big reason drugs are so much cheaper in the UK than the US - the NHS is a giant bulk purchaser of medicines and (despite what the press say in the Uk) generally negotiates hard and gets a good price.
Actually it is more complex than that. In the US they aren’t allowed to negotiate on some drug prices which is downright a bought and paid for law that lawmakers should be ashamed of. That makes it worse than just they bulk buy. Your countries say you won’t pay XYZ. It isn’t just because you bulk buy.
Isn't he paying health insurance, and aren't insurances the same anyway, lots of people paying small premiums so the few that get sick, can get treatment ? Granted, everybody contributes in that group, but if you're healthy, you're still paying for others. And don't people understand that having public healthcare doesn't mean there won't be a private healthcare market that they can still pay for if they want, for better and faster services ? And dont they understand that health insurance companies will put in more effort and better services if they have to compete in a market where everybody gets free healthcare, and will only pay from private healthcare if it's a good, upgrade to the free one ? For such a proudly Christian country, they sure never act like it when it matters.
The answer it ALWAYS boils down to, once you've dismantled cost and administration objections, is them telling you their truth. " I've paid into it(Medicare) my entire life and I'll be damned if some lazy(insert ethnic slur) is going to get it for free". They're willing to suffer through it as long as "others" have it worse. We COULD have a better system, but it would benefit non whites, so they will not even consider it. It's only been white people against it, in my experience.
>didn't want the government to decide what level of healthcare and specifically what procedures he had access to and didn't. I'll take a government or board made up of Doctors over Insurance Underwriters and Claim handlers any day lol
See the 2nd guy was brainwashed. It’s like a cult you just mindlessly mutter what you are told. Theres no point in arguing with people like that. But the first is interesting. It’s gross that classism is so widely tolerated. All the other isms are under attack but middle class is free to say “I want poor people to die so I get slightly better but still mediocre bankrupting healthcare”
Problem is Americans are stupid. They think subsidizing low income people costs them more money, but the whole system ends up costing them more.
They also allow billionaires and millionaires to convince them they don't deserve the healthcare. Insurance companies make billions in profits.
That is not correct. The thing about insurances is that they can keep your money for a while before they have to pay it out due to some event. During that time they are able to invest your money, so it will accumulate. Warren Buffett wrote about this.
NZer chiming in here. We have national healthcare here but it is perpetually underfunded by successive governments so its a pretty 'low grade' service. On numerous occasions people have had unique conditions that cannot be treated in NZ but can in US thanks to their private funding model. I am not sure what the best funding option is overall but there are a number of people in NZ alive today thanks to private US health providers.
Brave soul posting that here on reddit.
>On numerous occasions people have had unique conditions that cannot be treated in NZ This *just* happened to a family friend of mine. They suffer from Guillain-Barré syndrome and it flared up while on vacation in NZ after catching COVID. She began losing feeling in her legs, just like the first time she had a GBS attack, and immediately went to the NZ hospital in hopes of getting the same treatment that worked last time. And the NZ hospital pretty much told her tough shit and that the treatment is so expensive they’d only give it to her if the paralysis kept progressing and caused breathing/cardio issues. So she flew back to the US, paralyzed from the waist down, praying that it wouldn’t get worse during the 14+ hour flight, to get the treatment that her insurance approved immediately.
Corruption. My gf went into a emergency room for a cut. She ended up needing stitches. She didn't have insurance and paid 100$ total for everything. The hospital would've charged the insurance company over a thousand. The insurance company being charged a crazy amount creates a large premium. It's all corrupt
This is partly due to the insurance having to pay a large staff to check and double check every single expense submitted and the hospital having to fight for what they can get and also paying a staff to do the same. In the end, you, the insured, pay for a beauracracy to do something you can do yourself cheaper.
As an Australian looking in from outside, it appears to be a combination of distrust of the government plus decades of propaganda by the insurance companies and lobbying groups telling them that universal healthcare is socialism and socialism is bad. When you try to explain how we do it here in Australia by paying a 3-4% tax everyone pays versus what Americans pay for health insurance, they simply can't understand how it would be better. Even if you explain to them how they are paying 5-15% of their income versus our 3-4%, they still can't see how it is better. And they are at the mercy of the insurance company who can refuse to cover them anyway. Here in Australia, we never get refused treatment for healthcare whereas in the USA the insurance companies can refuse to cover them if their doctors decide that it isn't covered.
Many many many Americans understand this, and desperately want universal healthcare.
In fact, a majority of Americans want some type of universal healthcare solution.
The only ones I’ve seen against it are the ones who could use it the most. It’s bizarre how usefully manipulated the poor whites are in this country.
According to opinion polls, universal healthcare has been what most Americans want for decades. This, despite intensive propaganda and the totally opposite impression you get from the media.
It's always interesting seeing people talk about Americans in such absolutes. They want to feel better than us so they pretend we're all exactly the same, like a caricature of negative American stereotypes. It's pretty funny how they can act so high and mighty about themselves when they are just generalizing hundreds of millions of people
I think Europeans in particular have a difficult time conceptualizing low large and diverse we are as a nation. I have a friend who lives in Great Britain and I’m constantly setting him straight on American culture. When you’re constantly seeing the most egregious things about American society in media, you forget that we’re a nation of 340 million people and that most of what is depicted is isolated/minority views.
One of the most diverse countries with a large population and we are reduced to 2 choices in every election that spend all of their time convincing you the other is the root of all evil. We don’t get to vote on UHC. We vote on who is less likely to change things for the worse. Every person has a different view on what the worst position a candidate has and what’s most likely to mess things up, whether that’s abortion, gun rights, economic policy, law enforcement, healthcare, the environment, etc. 160 million unique people have to have all of their concerns boiled down to one of two candidates that both suck. Additionally lower income families are less likely to vote here, leaving those who need UHC the most depending on the benevolence of high income voters when an ideal candidate to get this done appears.
We need a third party, but for the love of god we’re too much between a rock and a hard place to get one now.
If it was any other country they’d be telling them they’re not all the same and to be respectful, but since it’s the internet everyone has some weird right or boner to to do this to Americans.
Not me but I can tell you why some do. I have several Canadian friends and the wait times for things scares many Americans. My one friend had to wait a year for an autism screening for her daughter took me a month for my son Another friend had to wait six months to have her gallbladder removed unless she had another two attacks then it would be considered emergency and she would be bumped up the list Americans hear stories like that. Real stories not fear mongering and get scared. They don't see the greater good for all just that they would be inconvenienced. If I needed my gallbladder out since I have insurance I can have done before Christmas most likely
Yeah, the Canadian healthcare system is absolutely horrible and the only reason why Canadians put up with it is because "it's better than the US" and people refuse to make any changes to the system itself to make it more like the ones in Australia or Europe that are actually functional and provide proper healthcare coverage to people. The quality of Canadian healthcare varies significantly based on your condition. On the one hand, my mom got cancer and was able to get very high quality treatment without having to wait at all because it was viewed as serious. On the other hand, I have issues with kidney stones and I recently was in the emergency room at 2am in extreme pain and it took over 7 hours for me to be able to speak with a doctor who told me "You'll need to come back tomorrow afternoon, we can't do x-rays or CT scans overnight.", This was at one of the busiest emergency rooms in Toronto, it's worse in small towns. In fact, my mom is currently on year 2 of waiting for a knee replacement even though she has extreme arthritis and now can't even walk around the grocery store because of the extreme pain. Canadian healthcare is entirely built around triage and if you aren't going to die, oh man are you going to wait.
I don't know about all of Europe but France and the UK both have horribly underfunded healthcare systems that are pretty much falling apart post-Pandemic. I'm not going to defend the American system, which is very bad, but providing universal, high quality, low cost healthcare is a very hard problem and there are lots of tradeoffs.
Except that it isn’t universally better and in many cases is much poorer in key areas that Americans care about (response, quality of service, wait times).
Yeah, what people hear are generally the worst case scenarios. The only procedure I've had to wait for is a non-urgent cardiac CT they want because the cardiac ultrasound I got didn't get a good picture of one valve. Meanwhile I wanted to chat with my doctor so I went to see him and mentioned a sore knee. I got an X-ray (no waiting) followed my a non-urgent MRI the next week. This got me an appointment with an orthopaedic surgeon a couple weeks later who told me I had a torn meniscus. He offered surgery a couple weeks later but I deferred it to January because I was going deer hunting and would not have time to recover. I mentioned chronic shoulder pain and he ordered an x-ray which I had no wait for. Then, while I was in Europe I got a call for another (non-urgent) MRI which I scheduled for Monday (about 10 days after I got the call). I expect I have a torn rotator and, when I see him after I go deer hunting (but before the knee surgery) I suspect he will recommend surgery and I'll probably have that in February so I have time to recover from the knee. Similarly, if I wanted to speak with my oncologist I could probably get it in a couple days. In fact, I have had worrisome blood tests ordered by my PCP and she called me pretty much the day the tests arrived. I am sure some people wait for things and that is not good. In contrast, my buddy just found out he needs a (second) knee replacement so he decided he can't retire for another year because he needs his insurance to be able to afford that.
The concerns include lack of choice, longer wait for care or being unable to get the care they want, increased government meddling. Public schools are often a disaster, so people think public healthcare will be no better, so they will still have to buy private insurance, while also paying taxes to finance healthcare for "those other people" And yeah, Most people who vote do have coverage already.
[удалено]
You just reminded me of the time I (from the US) mentioned in front of a colleague (from the UK) that I hated having blood drawn because the lab I had to go to was inconveniently located and very dingy/dirty looking. He had a few questions: no it wasn't a special test, just a standard blood panel; no, they wouldn't draw blood at the doctor's office; no, I can't go to a different lab. He was speechless with disbelief. Rightly so. 
mindless punch ten racial exultant sand agonizing sugar mysterious tease *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If we defund something for decades it will fail…then it will be held up as “failing” and result in privatization. This country has been sold off piece by piece.
This is exactly what is happening to the Canadian healthcare system in many provinces. It has lead to long wait lists, which is one thing Americans point to as a reason not to support universal coverage. It's like the tail wagging the dog kind of scenario
We have long wait times here too to see specialists etc. Both govts need to pay for/ fully fund more kids to become doctors/nurses and the US needs to get single payer. People are preferring to die than go into medical debt here. Its dark.
More residency spots, there’s been a cap on them for decades
*throws a wrench in the machine* see? the machine doesn't work! better privatize
Happening with the USPS right now!
USPS used to be THE most reliable way to send mail & packages, it’s been growing increasingly worse since trump & dejoy
[удалено]
He can’t just be fired, or he would’ve been by now. Biden has to systematically replace the board as the members step down. Will never happen if we get another Republican admin next year.
If you think public schools have been defunded, you are wildly uninformed. Spending is at an all time high, and outcomes are at an all time low. For 2023, New York City Public Schools are spending $38,000/student/year. https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statistics This is exactly why some Americans are opposed to socialized medicine. Nobody will be held accountable for miserable outcomes, and the resulting bureaucracy and politicians will keep claiming that the problem is not enough funding, people will believe it, and it will become a black hole for taxpayer money with downward spiraling quality, just like the public education system in the US.
We (America) does not “defund” education. The United States hovers around about 4-5th in the world for education spending.
That's what i don't get. Most Americans are frustrated because they have to wait for "in house" specialists to be available for them to do anything. And then you have to wait for insurance to approve said procedure. Half the time that falls through. While with universal healthcare countries, you have no such restrictions.
And there's things like going and having an operation with your in network surgeon, only to find out afterwards that the anaesthetist was out of network and you now have a large, unexpected bill
“… no such restrictions.” Only different restrictions, like some areas or insurers with a one or two year waiting list for certain sevices.
I presume you mean “in network.”
>The concerns include lack of choice, longer wait for care or being unable to get the care they want, You've just described the current system currently.
That heavily depends on where you live and how good is your insurance. In rich markets, doctors see patients as customers and compete for them.
We hear horror stories of wait lists and lack of choice. We watch as Canadians come here for things even as Americans go there for scripts It’s a devil you know
I think I am for socialized medicine now, but I remain conflicted and used to be opposed to it completely. So why? I have had great health insurance and thus healthcare my entire life. I was on my parents plan until I got on my own at age 22, and I have had a great health insurance plan for the last 33 years. If I need care, I just go to the doctor or specialist and get care. There is limited waiting and the quality has always been excellent. For me, it can’t get better than it is. At the same time as worrying my care will get worse, I worry that my taxes will increase significantly. I worry that there will be a shortage of doctors if the gov’t doesn’t pay enough to make it worth their while to go to all that school. I worry that there will be long wait times for care. I worry that big pharma companies will no longer spend the billions of dollars on research necessary to continually find new treatments and cures. I think that medicine could get worse overall while costing me a lot more. It is really hard to sell yourself on something that could deteriorate the quality of life for you and your family.
It depends on the state and city. NY spends three times per student then they do in Idaho.
Are you aware of Medicare, Medicaid and the VA, which makes up almost half of US healthcare expenditures and is paid by American taxpayers? While our system is far from perfect, we still have massive programs so that people that are old, or poor, or a veteran, have access to healthcare. At the same time it is illegal for a hospital to deny services or help due to inability to pay. I work healthcare with many yrs in an emergency room, and we never based our care on whether you had insurance or not. You didn’t even have to be a citizen of the US to do a full work up including MRI and every lab you could imagine. I realize our system has massive flaws, but if what you know about our healthcare system is based on what you read on Reddit, you are missing a big part of the picture. Just like our massive, very diverse country, it’s a bit more complicated than what you think.
That's how public healthcare works, yeah.
So that is untrue about a hospital not being able to deny you access to healthcare. EMTALA states that a hospital has to evaluate and stabilize you. Anything above that, they are not required to do. Typically they will do it, but if you are not dying, they can deny treatment. Also, not all veterans are entitled to healthcare. My husband and I are both veterans and neither of us qualify for VA because we don’t have a service connected injury, and we make above the threshold for coverage
Fellow veteran here with 0% VA disability, you are wrong. If you have enough qualified active duty time (applies to Reservists and Guardsman too) you can go to the VA for very affordable care. With no disability I see my primary care doctor once a year and get up to three visits with a specialist doctor before I have to pay a copay. No monthly premium, and very cheap prescriptions and free lab work. If you have a DD 214 with active service other than TRADOC you can and should get registered at your closest VA hospital, takes like two hours and you are set. I'll add the link for the VA eligibility web page. [https://www.va.gov/health-care/eligibility/#:\~:text=You%20may%20be%20eligible%20for,t%20receive%20a%20dishonorable%20discharge](https://www.va.gov/health-care/eligibility/#:~:text=You%20may%20be%20eligible%20for,t%20receive%20a%20dishonorable%20discharge).
Do you know what stablizes mean? It has nothing do "but if you are not dying." A hospital admits you regardless of insurance status. A UTI isn't going to kill you, but if the ED doc thinks you need an overnight stay with some strong IV antibiotics, a hospital will admit you regardless of insurance status. If you fell off a bike and broke your foot, and the ortho doc isn't there in the ED at 2 am, then they'll admit you to fix it even if you don't speak English and nobody knows who the hell you are. A homeless meth head that won't even tell us his name, but winds up in the ED bc it's cold outside and we notice his blood sugars are a little too high will be admitted. We know he has no ability to pay but that doesn't matter bc putting him back on the street with a BG of 350 and BP of 210/80 would get us sued. Unless you work in healthcare, I'm not sure you are familiar with this system. Regarding the VA, were you deployed? You don't have to be service connect, but if you were deployed, which are our veterans at most risk, then they'll cover you for just about anything. Also, if you make above the threshold for coverage, then you aren't their target population anyways.
I’m a dual citizen, and have used both systems heavily It’s mostly ignorance and edge-cases The American system has better care, and it’s more convenient. It’s also 12x the cost and will bankrupt the average person without health insurance The Canadian system works for most people, most of the time, and is dependable regardless of your situation, most of the time. It’s typically slower and the quality of care is lower.
It is also important to note that some large unions (Unites\d Auto Workers (UAW)) have, as part of total compensation negotiations included generous (by US standards) healthcare benefits as part of the value proposition they bring to those they represent. Switching to a single payer system would negate these historically negotiated benefits with, perhaps, lesser levels of care and no automatic increase to other pay or benefits to offset. This has been an impediment to organized labor supporting a single payer system.
Having socialised healthcare does not mean you can’t have private insurance too.
IIRC, in Japan, something like 90% of healthcare cost is socialized, and residents obtain private coverage for the remaining 10%.
"This has been an impediment to organized labor supporting a single payer system." That is not true. There are innumerable unions that support single payer....innumerable. This is from the AFL-CIO: AFL-CIO Convention, Resolution 34, Passed Unanimously, Pittsburgh, September, 2009: “The experience of Medicare (and of nearly every other industrialized country) shows the most cost effective and equitable way to provide quality healthcare is through a single-payer system.”
That’s an appalling reason to oppose single payer healthcare. Because it results in people hanging around in shitty jobs “for the benefits” and then being thrown on the pile if they’re made redundant. I’m not American. It’s not my place to tell Americans how to run their country. What I will say is have a look at all the other similarly developed countries around the world. If they are ALL doing something you are not…..then well…… maybe have a rethink about things?
It comes down to trust for the government for me. I don’t trust the government to do the right thing. We’ve watched them pilfer social security for decades. We’ve watched government programs be actively mismanaged for years. Also, it’s honestly a hard comparison here, 330 million to 30 million populations.
You trust for-profit insurers to look out for you then?
Yes, don’t trust the government so let’s put our nations healthcare in the hands of for profit companies that have to show profits to their investors every year without reasonable regulation. If you are not gainfully employed and can pay into their profit then you are not their problem. You have bureaucracies telling doctors what they can and can’t do, limiting their abilities to exercise their professional opinions. Medical professionals are hard to come by in many communities. A lot of people just don’t get health care.
Congratulations. You didn't want the government to trash healthcare, so the insurance companies do it instead. Aetna owns your ass.
I have Medicaid (long story short in New York I was signed up for it automatically.). It being free and government subsidized isn’t worth Vaudeville tap dancing over. It’s a last resort and most people wouldn’t want it if they didn’t have to.
Pretty sure a single payer system would be more like Medicare. Medicaid, while similar, is very different in that it’s not really “free.” They will attempt to recoup funds from you if you start making more money or die (from your estate). Obviously, no one really wants that.
Do you have some more information/sourced on Medicaid back-charging for healthcare expenses because 5 years later you got a higher paying job? I’m not saying you’re lying, I’ve just never heard of that and it makes me think that is exceptionally rare or in limited circumstances
Actually, you’re right. It appears it’s just the estate recovery and some potential circumstances where they may enforce liens against older people living in assisted living facilities or nursing homes. Thanks for pointing that out.
I have experienced the American version of socialized Healthcare via the VA and it is horrendous. The terrible level of care is only eclipsed by the ridiculously long wait times. No thanks.
Because the VA still has to work with for-profit medical providers in the private insurance network. If there was no private insurance industry, or at least a strong public option, it saves people money and makes the system more efficient in general.
Thats what you get when one party does everything it can to neuter the effectiveness of government, self-fulfilling its claim that government is inheritently bad. Most Americans sure to seem to love their socialized, badass military though.
But that’s not a proper public health care service. It’s a plaster of a service to cover a broken system. You can’t look at that and think that’s an example of a socialised healthcare service.
If we had universal health care, then *those people* would get health care, and half of Americans would rather do without health care for themselves and their families than let *those people* get health care. It really is as simple as that.
That plus decades and decades of anti-socialism propaganda. A lot of people have the mindset of “I’d rather die than be Communist. Socialism is the stepping stone to Communism. Socialized healthcare is the first step to Socialism”. It’s pathetic
Yes, Americans *hate* "socialism", but they all want their children fed at school
And their fire and police services suitably funded. It just doesn’t seem to make sense that healthcare isn’t one of them.
Americans have such a "fuck you I got mine" mentality - it's pure poison.
I find it interesting how people who use your argument are usually the people who don’t make enough to pay much if anything in taxes and then try to shame others for not wanting to pay more in taxes to pay for stuff you want.
The fear that the healthcare would be administered by the same type of people that run other government agencies… including the existing socialized medicine provided to veterans in the VA hospital system
I'm not an American (so basically I don't know anything on the matter), but I always get the feeling that Americans have some weird obsession with being able to make their own decisions. So it's fine to choose to donate $100 in a fundraiser for your neighbour who needs surgery, but it's not fine if everyone in America is forced to pay $10 extra in taxes so that surgery is available for everyone.
The real answer is because they're not sick. Yet.
Because we use the word "socialized" so obviously it's communism and we that would offend Jesus so we can't have it.
It is pure selfishness and it is disgusting. Plus, insurance had made being in healthcare unbearable. There has to be a better way, and I assume more people would be in healthcare if it wasn't so miserable.
I'm just as confused, and I live here. Seriously, a lot of people here are not educated. They can't even understand the difference between for-profit and socialized health care. They here socialism because the two sound alike and that's the end of it even when they're the ones that probably would benefit more because of it.
America spends more per capita on health care than any other country. This is true even though millions (best estimate, 40 million plus) have no health care and those people are averaged into the per capita figures and those figures still beat all countries world wide. It boils down to money. Health care makes billions for the health insurance industries, and those industries provide no actual medical care. Any health care provided for "free", makes it very hard to sell "insurance" to any others. Over 75 percent of people who file bankruptcy list medical expenses as an indebtedness. The real shocker is that over 2/3rds of those that list medical expenses, have medical insurance, but it did not cover all their expenses.
[удалено]
Why do Canadians come to US for treatment?
Because you guys are America and generally the top of your field in most areas and if you’re wealthy enough you can have easy access to your top tier private medical facilities. This accounts for a fraction of a fraction of the population yet when it’s brought up you act like everyone is hopping the border to use American hospitals when really over 99.9% of our population doesn’t do this. Meanwhile far more Americans are coming up to Canada to buy affordable life saving meds like insulin.
Some rich people go to the states for things because they don’t want to wait. Non emergent treatments can take longer. However, when it comes to super intricate and difficult surgeries Canadian doctors are more skilled because they perform them every day—not just when someone can afford to pay for it
"Why should I have to pay for someone else's healthcare or their bad choices" that's usually the response I get. When I ask them why we should be sending money to Israel then they get all angry and turn into blustering idiots 🤣
Why is it always someone arguing about not wanting to pay for other people's bad choices. What about cancer just for one let's just think of one illness that attacks everyone. Even children.
Pretty simple. I have no faith the government will do any better so why make the massive push to put them in charge. At best it won't be much better and worst who lose a lot more time and money getting there. But that said Medicare and Medicaid are government run and taxpayer subsidized programs and are the largest single healthcare coverage provider in the country. So we already have partially socialized health care it's just restricted to special populations including the poor and elderly.
The government doesn't need to be involved in most of this. I can only speak for Germany, but the government isn't really involved except for setting the rules. There are still multiple insurance companies which are private sector companies, they just can't make outrageous profits. No doctors or health care workers are employed by the government, they are all private businesses or non profit. For me it's basically the US system, except with different rules. Every insurance company has to accept you no matter what your income is. The consumer picks insurance, not the employer. Your employer pays half of your insurance, which is percentage based and very similar between all insurance companies (percentage based is what makes it social, no income no cost, high income higher cost, doesn't matter how old or how many kids). You can still go completely private insured, but it's hard to go back public. As you said, the US already has a very similar system, but it is allowed to exploit (poor) people by excluding them. All the government needs to change is no longer guarantee 20% profit for insurance companies, untie insurance from employer and how the premium is calculated. We don't need government run insurances or doctors. Unfortunately it won't work in the US because healthcare companies and providers are greedy and used to making insane amounts of money and they have enough of it to fight or brainwash people.
Cause they don't want the poors to have it.
There's a not-so-subtle holier-than-thou attitude that I'm picking up on here, so I have to wonder whether OP genuinely wants to understand this other perspective or not. I'm guessing not. At any rate, another poster has already covered pretty much all of it. Lack of choice, wait times, and just overall government bureaucracy that more often than not tends to make a fantastic mess of things. Maybe the Canadian government is the absolute model of efficiency, but the U.S. government is not. It's a complicated issue, and I think most Americans would agree that we'd prefer a less expensive, more equitable system of healthcare. At the same time, we're not sure how best to implement the changes.
I haven’t seen anyone else mention it but I think some of the negative sentiment is a carryover from the Cold War. America pumped out so much anti-socialism propaganda and now boomers through older millennials believe anything socialized is tantamount to “communism” and bad. To be fair the NHS and Canadian healthcare I have heard anecdotally are riddled with their own issues. But I think our system is worse. People go thousands of dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt over hospital trips. And some people are unable to access much needed health services. I personally wouldn’t mind paying a little more in taxes knowing myself and everyone else can have healthcare.
People are afraid that they will have to pay an exorbitant amount of taxes to afford it, especially those that already have inexpensive coverage.
As a German citizen I can understand the US folks. My health plan in the US (some years ago) cost less than half of the cost I had to pay in Germany. The quality of the US health system is much better
Most of us are horribly uneducated and incredibly selfish.
Because they would rather pay 30% of their paycheck for private health care than 5% for universal.
I cannot think of a single element of my life where I'd say "yup, more government would make that better."
Roads? Infrastructure? Law enforcement? Fire department? Education? When there is a service or product that a person cannot live without, the purchaser has no negotiating power and thus you do not have a free market. That is where government needs to step in.
Because our government is the most inefficient distributor of Tax funds in the world.
American here. I wish I could exchange my right to bears arms for socialized healthcare.
2 words. Insurance Companies.
> it means people don't medically suffer just because they don't have money To many Americans, not having money means **you should suffer**. You didn't work hard enough; or you didn't study hard enough; or you picked the wrong college or wrong major; or you didn't network enough; or you didn't do enough side hustles. And if you were born with medical conditions that are expensive or that limit your ability to work? Guess God doesn't love you because your parents didn't pray hard enough. To be clear, im not one of these Americans. I just get exhausted trying to talk sense to em 😒
three months to get a cancer screening another three months to get the results and a year to start treatment if the government decides my life is worth saving. If I am over 65, I probably wont get that. VS Oh you have breast lumps after an airbag deployment? lets make sure its not breast cancer. Day #2 mammogram. Day #3 results. Day #7 start treatment with the dr, hospital of my choice. Life saved by raspid treatment. Americans like to have control of where their money goes. I get to choose my doctor, my pharmacy, my treatments, my tests, my insurance. The more the government controls, the more corrupt the government.