Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Do you realize that, when people complain about the "long wait times" of Universal Health Care...?

That, the reason our courrent system has no long wait times, is because those people DON'T GET TREATED. They may have a serious illness that goes untreated because they cannot afford a doctor's visit, forcing them to suffer until it is bad enough to warrant an emergency room visit, at which time it may be to bad to cure, and they can become one of the 18,000 who die each year because they cannot afford their care:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/200...

So next time someone complains that UHC has long wait times, you can translate for them! They are saying "I would rather those human beings suffer, even die, rather than inconvenience me"

31 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Obviously Kevin, many who answer here are not walking in the shoes of the mid-aged uninsured, or they would have a different tune.

    Try being in your mid 50's, have a family and no insurance. You work at a job where you just get by paying the bills. You cannot afford to get regular check ups, or visit a doctor for what you think might be a minor illness, it is only when you drop over do you get transported to the hospital. Health Insurance for average mid aged families cost way, way too much under private insurance. It is simply unaffordable. But hey....what do most of you care, your young and healthy, maybe your employer pays for your insurance, so who gives a dam about others.

  • 1 decade ago

    Yes.

    First of all, of course universal health-cover sucks. That is why we in Western Europe have it. We think, hmm, our healthcare system sucks. I know, lets keep it. I guess that is the same with Japan and Canada as well.

    Second, Obama is not going to bring in universal healthcare. He wants to make insurance more available to all.

    FACT - the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet.

    FACT - the US has higher death rates for kids aged under five than western European countries with universal health coverage.

    That means that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in Canada, France, Cuba, Germany, Japan etc, all of which have universal health coverage.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Also there is just one county hospital where I live that takes indigent (poor people ) and that line and waite is very long .

    Paying into Medical Insurance is actually equal to receiving a medical coupon in the end and medical Insurance is biggest money making scam there is .

    A Life and death money making scam.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yes I do realize that now that you mention it but it never occurred to me to put it into those words. Very clever and nice observation. I don't know if it's really that much of a clincher though because do YOU realize that probably 90% of all "long wait times" complaints are at least gross exaggerations if not outright lies in the first place?

    I have a hard time expecting folks that argue that dishonestly in the first place to take any logic seriously. I mean, look at the fundamentals of their position: No. I don't want universal healthcare. I would prefer accountants diagnose my condition, overcharge me for limited coverages with hidden exemptions then at whim and without accountability, reject any given claim and laugh all the way to the bank while I die.

    How do you argue with that? I sympathize with you but I've been at this argument a while and trust me, this is not an argument you win with logic, reason, fact, proof or common sense. In fact, I don't know what it takes to win this argument because that's never happened to me. It's always the same thing. You present an air tight case that is impossible to argue, the subject hesitates then says, "Well, I don't want the government meddling in my healthcare."

    Try this response to that statement: Oh, but you want private enterprise with a profit motive and no accoutability meddling in your healthcare?

    That argument doesn't work either. The reason no logic, fact or obvious truth ever works is because these are not logical, sensible or reasonable arguments, these are matters of superstitious religious belief and that is the only way to address it. The "I don't want government meddling in my life" and "private enterprise is more efficient and cost effective" attitudes are superstitious religious beliefs, not logic, reason or common sense. Our society is effectively a great big giant religious cult and the way to argue these issues (and pretty much all other issues) is to consider every subject a brainwashed religious fanatic. Do not argue with these people, deprogram them! The most encouraging results I have had in these arguments (still less than outright 'victories') is in focusing on broad fundamentals, not specific debate issues. You do that by challenging the subject to define fundamental attitudes, beliefs and definitions for 'the self', 'the society', 'the government' and private enterprise. (These are the roots of our cult beliefs: self-loathing, suspicion of humanity, hatred of society and celebration of extraordinary individualism.) Never tell the subject he/she is 'wrong' but just keep asking questions about the attitudes, beliefs and definitions. 99% of the time, even if indirectly, the subject's words will most closely associate the self, the society and the government (because this is the truth) then point that out to the subject and let him/her take it under advisement. This is how you deprogram the brainwashed religious cult follower. If you're really serious about it, I also recommend studying up on the whole religious cult / deprogramming thing ("wikipedia Leon Festinger cognitive dissonance" is a good place to start).

    You're preaching to the choir over here, and that's probably the only comfort you're going to experience with this argument. Enjoy it then buckle down and get back to that deprogramming regimen. It's never going to be very rewarding for us, but just keep telling yourself it's going to be real rewarding for somebody else later.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 4 years ago

    The National Healthcare in England mandated that ER patients be seen within a specified time, so guess what? the ER made them stay outside in the ambulance to make their numbers look good

  • 1 decade ago

    Greg, you speak for many people in this country. People who are denied coverage, can't afford coverage, pay for it and still lose everything...

    this system is barbaric.

    I know many Canadians, have spend a lot of time in Canada, and not ONE person envies us our system. They don't go bankrupt because they get cancer, they don't put off treatment because they can't afford it.

    In fact, they pity us.

    As far as these insolent posters, talking about tvs and toenails being clipped, they should be ashamed to be so ignorant.

  • Exactly backwards, of course.

    Even fewer people get treated in places with UHC so you have long wait times AND don't get trerated. Only then, even if you could afford it you can't get care. A bureaucrat decides what will be available and what will be forbidden by law. These systems KILL people every day.

    - Europeans with colon or breast cancer face a FAR higher risk of death than do "uninsured Americans." In the UK the cancer mortality is literally a couple orders of magnitude higher.

    - European trauma victims die. The end. For all intents and purposes, there is NO SUCH THING as emergency care.

    - Ditto for diabetics and a host of others who have fairly normal lives here.

    The "international statistics" paint an extremely distorted picture. In these systems, it's ALL about the bureaucracy so unless you GET admitted and GET care you are never statistically acknowledged as being ill in the first place. They're dying in droves while "officially" in perfect health.

    Don't get started on longevity, infant mortality etc. There's no comparison. If you don't live almost a year post-delivery you NEVER become a statistic. Their "lower infant mortality" compares everyone delivered still breathing in the US but who dies in infancy vs their deaths between 9-12 months. Dying before 9-months gets you statistically erased. By that standard we have statistically NO infant mortality yet their "numbers" look better than ours and the lack of "very early" deaths skews the average reported longevity as well.

    You can't joke about UHC. Whatever you come up with will usually just describe it. (Like Canada's 10-month wait for a birthing suite; or that your dog can get an MRI same-day but yours will be next year.)

    Poverty is riskier than the alternative. This is why conservatives promote things that produce WEALTH across ALL income levels. You have declared you prefer to make their situation markedly WORSE while forcing everyone else into the same boat. Yep, even the middle-class will have third-world style care. That's fair, I guess.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I have friends in Canada and they would never move here or come here for treatment. They can't believe that the supposed richest nation in the world cannot provide some sort of basic universal health care for it's people.

    Seems to me the private insurance companies are doing a great job at brain washing the public. Do you people see, they are trying to convince you with propaganda because they are afraid of their multi-billion dollar business would not survive. They don't give a crap about me or you.

  • 1 decade ago

    Not true

    Under medicad, medicare, Childrens health insurance programs and state health insurance people have access to health care. Also under federal law hospitals are required to treat people in the emergency room reguardless of ability to pay.

    You really have a hang up with universal health care? what are you really driving at. I once had a college professor who worked for the state. He advocated rent control in housing, he made 100K per year should he have had a rent controled apartment in boston? the answer is no, that is not what rent control was established for. UHC though enticing is not the answer, health reform and legal reform to reduce costs and increase affordability is. Do not get to wrapped around the axle with this sort of issue, the more you become emotional about it the less clear and objective your thinking is. As you also reference article there was a political figure (who was disqualified for not paying his taxes) that advocated that elderly people be allowed to die because the cost of health care to them did not have sufficient payback and would bankrupt the systme if they were treated. He was a liberal democrate. Please keep this adivce in mind, emotions will fail when put to a stress test. stay objective

  • 1 decade ago

    Right now the latest improvement in the system is the High Deductible Plan, that is the No Insurance Insurance Plan. We have that at work $50 a week and it does not pay 1 dollar for anything until you meet the $2950 family decuctible!

    Great, If you don't go to the Dr. you don't have to pay! Horay!

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.