People from Finland, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Norway, etc...please chime in

[Ryal Kane]

I'm from New Zealand and certainly don't feel opressed or controlled by government.
I don't agree with everything they do; our more right wing party is in right now and I suspect more privatization on the horizon.

I'm as free as I want to be in this country, so long as I don't start iminging on the rights of others. The only difference is gun ownership and I don't really want to have one.

I certainly wouldn't want to live in the US and to be honest, I wouldn't even want to visit there, though I don't really have much of a wanderlust.

I find it odd that almost everyone i nthis thread living outside the US has said they prefer it where they are but a few posters are adamant in their 'Well you're wrong' attitude. Inability to understand that other people might see things differently to you isn't exactly a healthy outlook on the world.

 

[DZoolander]

I find it odd that almost everyone i nthis thread living outside the US has said they prefer it where they are but a few posters are adamant in their 'Well you're wrong' attitude. Inability to understand that other people might see things differently to you isn't exactly a healthy outlook on the world.

Very well said.

 

[XTE]

Please elaborate. How is it that the super-rich have created the super-poor? How many people have been reduced to the status of "super-poor" because of the actions of Bill Gates?

EZ, this is what I was talking about when I said there is a certain side of the aisle that simply does not understand the concept of inverse proportionality. It has completely escaped them no matter how long they've been on this Earth.

That's most of the problem.

oldbetang. We have a finite amount of "riches" in this country. Let's shrink that number however so people can understand it better. Let's say there is only 1,000 dollars in circulation and that includes all product. If the super-rich hold 980 of those dollars, the rest of us fight over 20 dollars. Now, remember that we call it CIRCULATION because money circulates. We need to pay that super-rich guy a dollar each year to get the bread me need to eat and he is the only one owning a bread factory. That super-rich guy has us in dire need, begging him simply because he owns the factory and WORST yet, he is the son of the guy that was the son of the guy that was the son of the guy that first built the factory. Kind of like Kim Jong Il and his son. They, the super-rich set demand by limiting availability and set our wages at the same time. They literally have decided they are only going to give us 20 dollars at any given time to do something with....

That is literally what we have in the states at this moment in time.

Now, you need to get away from the idea of simply it being "the rich have the right to their money." It's not that simple. Be honest and say "the rich have the right to constantly make more money than we do and on top of that there should be no Death Tax because everyone born to a rich guy is inherently worthy and smart and should be treated like the royalty our fore-fathers escaped so long ago...." You are hurting our country by put your foot on people that could potentially work their way to the top, easily, if the system worked for us.

Try and consider what Inverse Proportionality implies and watch your ability to empathize with everyone else grow 100 fold. It's an extremely simple concept if you understand limits and I wish you the best of luck with it.

 

[orre]

Then how do you maintain your class separations? How do you keep "them" from mixing with "us"?

Ok, With people beeing anonymous on the internet, I could belong to either the "them" or "us" -group. And what classes did you have in mind? You know, I don't fancy when classes have to be maintained just for som petty differences. Children from both socially poor and rich families can be equally ableminded. To forfeit some of the people who are thirsting for knowledge is to throw away great reasorces, as a nation, I think.

And thanks for the welcome! I will look up the tip!

Greetings
Orre

 

[DZoolander]

While I may agree with a lot of that XTE - I really don't want this thread to turn into a discussion on the merits of wealth - or the "deserving" of it - or how it pertains to the ability/inability of others to obtain it.

Getting into discussions like that is a slippery slope - that IMHO - the objectors to nationalized insurance *want* it to become. In a sense - it makes our medical system (or anyone else's medical system) become a litmus test for capitalism - which I do not believe it is (or should be).

I believe that there are very practical reasons why nationalized insurance is the best idea - and I believe that others who enjoy it can attest to how well it can run - and dissuade others from believing that somehow their systems are inferior to ours.

Engaging in discussions about the merits of capitalism IMHO are futile - and turn our medical system into a sort of punitive system that punishes those that are too big of "losers" to pay for it. I do not believe that's true - and I don't want this discussion to become sidetracked by those types of discussions.

While I think it's a worthwhile discussion to have - I'd rather it not become a red herring in this thread to sidetrack from the issue at hand...which is what others feel about their medical systems - and whether or not they envy ours.

 

[Catherineanne]

The difference here is that case would be used to argue against universal health care.

The argument is "why should I work hard to support that bum?"

That 'bum' is my daughter's father, and my former husband. He does bear some responsibility for his mistakes, but it is also true that he has paid a very high price for them, and continues to pay it.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

 

[Catherineanne]

These people you are talking about have an antisocial personality disorder.

This is right. We do not help the disadvantaged only for their sake, but for our own.

 

[Catherineanne]

It is not right having super-rich people anyways. What is their justification for being worth a thousand or a million times more than an average hard-working slave ?

If God chooses to bless them with money, then that is not my concern. Imo, great riches are a much more difficult blessing to deal with than poverty.

I personally was never so far away from God than when I had a successful career, a very generous salary and a company car. Now I have nothing, he is as close to me as my own heartbeat.

 

[Catherineanne]

What would happen if an american president, instead of signing an order to kill 100.000 muslim children would sign an order to grab the fortune of the 100.000 richest people on earth (leaving them just a million each), how would the world look like tomorrow ?

The world would look no different.

However, the Vice President would be in charge, and the President having a 'rest' in an appropriate medical facility.

Contrary to popular belief, US Presidents only have jurisdiction in the US, and cannot take fortunes from non US citizens. Such as, for example, the Duke of Westminster and the Queen.

 

[DaisyDay]

That 'bum' is my daughter's father, and my former husband. He does bear some responsibility for his mistakes, but it is also true that he has paid a very high price for them, and continues to pay it.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

I'm glad he's being treated well; I'm also sorry for his troubles and yours.

He would not be treated well here.

My point was that alcoholics, drug addicts and fat people are seen here as not deserving of support or publicly funded health care. I don't agree with that, but I argue with a lot of people who do.

 

[Catherineanne]

I'm glad he's being treated well; I'm also sorry for his troubles and yours.

Thank you.

He would not be treated well here.

My point was that alcoholics, drug addicts and fat people are seen here as not deserving of support or publicly funded health care. I don't agree with that, but I argue with a lot of people who do.

I understand that. The same kind of undercurrent of opinion grumbles away here; do smokers deserve treatment? What about overweight people etc.

The problem is, there is no-one perfect, and if there were, that person would not need health care. Therefore, a universal system such as ours must cater for everyone.

 

[nolongerhome]

I've not had a very healthy week in my socialised health care country. I posted this in full in this thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t7382687/#post52313224

But I figure this is a good place to repeat my story about my week.

Point 4.

I'm going to tell you about my week in socialised medicine.

On Monday around lunchtime I had a pain in my eye. I thought something, a speck of dust or an eyelash, had got caught in my eye, it was painful, but I thought it would go away. Half an hour later it hadn't, and was starting to really hurt. I excused myself form work and went around the corner to the optometrist, hoping they would be able to look at it and take whatever was annoying me out. I got to the optometrist and was seen almost immidiately - they saw that it was worse than I had expected and asked me to wait 10 minutes while the booked patient was seen. I was soon in the chair under microscopes and a number of photographs were taken with dye on my eye, which revealed an ulcer around half a centimetre in diamter - very large. I needed to see a specialist. The optometrist said I would have to see an ophthalmologist or go to the eye hospital about 25 minutes away. Calls were made, and at 1pm, within an hour of the problem starting, I had seen someone, I had an initial diagnosis and had an appointment with a specialist scheduled for three hours time, just after 4pm.

I attended the ophthalmologist who confirmed the diagnosis. She prescribed an ointment and organised a follow up appointment. I went downstairs from the ophthalmologist's office to the pharmacy and paid AU$16 (I guess around US$10) for the ointment. I saw the ophthalmologist again the next afternoon. No improvement yet, I was told to continue treatment and come back in two days. That was this morning - things have improved a lot in the last 24 hours, so I'm almost completely better, the treatment has kicked in. I will see the ophthalmologist again tommorow afternoon to make sure everything has continued to improve.

You will note that not only was I seen by both an optometrist and and ophthalmologist, I waited at most 3 hours to get an appointment with a leading specialist in my city, I received personalised care which continued throughout the week as I improved, and I only parted with money on one occaison, to purchase the ointment that I needed - I didn't have to pay for any of my 5 appointments with medical professionals.

So much for waiting around until I died. I doubt I would have received better treatment anywhere else in the world, and all it cost me was US$10.

Point 5.

I would like to think that my week has perhaps shone some light on how our system works - no government bureaucrat decides what treatment I get, trained medical professionals decide what I need based on my condition. I would contrast that with the current US system where, instead of treatment based on need, you get treatment based on what the insurance company is willing to pay for.

Point 6.

Never was my freedom to chose infringed upon during this week. I went to the optometrist I always go to, because I like her. I was given the option of trying to find a specialist on short notice, and I ended up getting an appointment with my first preference, or going to the specialist eye hospital. I chose the people I saw, I saw them promptly, and I really couldn't have asked for any more from anyone.

$10 for efficient, continued treatment by medical professionals of my chosing for a problem which sprung up completely out of the blue and caused me a great deal of pain, and would have continued to if it wasn't treated.

And you ask me if I would rather be in the USA?

 

[DZoolander]

Great post

 

[Veritas]

Well, there's always trade-offs. Nearly all these countries with socialized medicine also have higher per-capita crime rates than the US:

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

 

[Catherineanne]

Well, there's always trade-offs. Nearly all these countries with socialized medicine also have higher per-capita crime rates than the US:

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

One thing most sensible people in the UK know full well, and that is not to take their statistical information from the Daily Mail. Notice that they got the UK bit from the Conservatives, rather than using Government figures. Rather like asking the Republican party to comment on Democrat achievements in reducing crime.

This is very dodgy stuff. If anyone is interested in a less hysterical overview, not that it actually has any correlation with health care, then see the following:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708summ.pdf

 

[DZoolander]

I'd need to check that to give an opinion on it. I know that the murder rate in the US is almost 5 times larger than that of the UK, for example. So, how the aggregate totals of all crime works out I'm not sure. And...citing "Conservatives" as your source seems a bit fishy to me.

It's not really pertinent, though, to the discussion at hand. We're not really discussing whose society you're more likely to experience a home burglary in. We're talking about healthcare, and whether or not it's the bain on society that my fellow conservatives make it out to be

 

[paperkate]

Those 'statistics' (ahem: Daily Mail) are misleading. It should be noted that the UK is far FAR more densely populated than the United States is. When you look at the crime figures, it is very impressive that such a huge number of people who are packed into such a small space are able to, in general, treat each other very well. Property crime: theft, vandalism, etc, IS quite high here. But crimes against the person: violent assault, rape, murder, are much much lower than the US. What violent crime there is tends to be city centre drunks beating up other drunks, and not random violence.

I know this is just personal perception, not 'statistics', but I feel far safer in the UK than I do in general in the US. I lived in Brixton in South London for four years and very safely returned home alone after nights out or late shifts at work, and felt safe. I visit my folks in 'small-town America' Asheville, North Carolina, and people are aghast at the suggestion of walking home at night - it just doesn't happen. People are afraid.

I know my chances of being violently assaulted, murdered, or raped are far lower here.

And, oh yeah, did I mention I get 26 days of vacation and free healthcare here??

 

[Veritas]

One thing most sensible people in the UK know full well, and that is not to take their statistical information from the Daily Mail. Notice that they got the UK bit from the Conservatives, rather than using Government figures. Rather like asking the Republican party to comment on Democrat achievements in reducing crime.

This is very dodgy stuff. If anyone is interested in a less hysterical overview, not that it actually has any correlation with health care, then see the following:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708summ.pdf

Yes dear, but if you read the article, the stats come from the European Commission and the UN. The Daily Mail just reported it. So I wouldn't be so quick to trash the source.

Those 'statistics' (ahem: Daily Mail) are misleading. It should be noted that the UK is far FAR more densely populated than the United States is. When you look at the crime figures, it is very impressive that such a huge number of people who are packed into such a small space are able to, in general, treat each other very well. Property crime: theft, vandalism, etc, IS quite high here. But crimes against the person: violent assault, rape, murder, are much much lower than the US. What violent crime there is tends to be city centre drunks beating up other drunks, and not random violence.

I know this is just personal perception, not 'statistics', but I feel far safer in the UK than I do in general in the US. I lived in Brixton in South London for four years and very safely returned home alone after nights out or late shifts at work, and felt safe. I visit my folks in 'small-town America' Asheville, North Carolina, and people are aghast at the suggestion of walking home at night - it just doesn't happen. People are afraid.

I know my chances of being violently assaulted, murdered, or raped are far lower here.

And, oh yeah, did I mention I get 26 days of vacation and free healthcare here??

Look, I know it's embarrassing to think that one's country has a high crime rate. But most people in the world who read things that come from say....the Daily Mail, actually have the opinion that the US is more crime-ridden and dangerous. It's simply not true. And you're very right about perception. Your family in NC may not feel safe walking home but the reality is it might be just fine...there're just scared. One of the safest places I've ever been was mid-town Manhattan, NYC. There was a cop on every corner. To be perfectly honest, you're safer walking just about anywhere than driving due to the high rate of car crashes.

The bottom line is that the US doesn't have a high crime rate compared to virtually all European countries and Canada. Now, I have a different take on it. I believe that these various countries gun restrictions play a role in crime statistics. Notice that Switzerland is not on the top 10 list along with the US. Both of those countries have private gun ownership laws. Studies done in the US have demonstrated that those states with the most gun restrictions also had the highest crime rates and those with the least gun restrictions having the lowest crime rates. IOW, one's ability to defend oneself is a deterrent to being a victim of crime. Everyday in papers across American, there are stories of people who have displayed or used a personal gun to foil a crime. I know some of you will have complete knee-jerk reactions to gun ownership but you can't argue with facts.

PS there is no such thing as "free" healthcare....and you know it!

 

[DZoolander]

I agree with most of what Veritas says there.

Most of what America suffers from is fear of crime...and it's largely not based upon any real statistics or probability of falling victim to crime. Heck - I'm a white guy - and I remember running out of gas in Compton one night at 3am. As fearful as I was of finding a gas station and being out there - not a thing happened to me.

So - that factors a lot into the reasons why people in places like Asheville might feel reluctant to go outside. It isn't that they really suffer any *real* threat. They just think they do. Those types of fears are endemic to American culture (and also one of the main reasons why we're so armed). I'm 39 years old - and I've been in some dodgy places in the past. I can honestly say that I've never been in a situation where realistically I thought "Wow - I wish I had a gun" - and I've never been accosted/mugged/etc.

On the same note - we are much more likely to have murders and other truly violent personal crimes (from what I've read) vs. our European counterparts. How that works out in an aggregate total - I dunno. I'm not particularly interested. I simply know that if I'm walking down the streets of Asheville - while I statistically stand a greater chance of being shot to death vs. if I were walking down the streets of London, I'm probably safe. If I'm walking down the streets of London - I'm probably safe.

Whatever.

As for "free healthcare" - of course nothing is free. However - what we're talking about is subrogated risk (which is what all insurance - whether it be nationalized or privatized - works off of). That's what I'm interested in. People here claim that nationalized insurance leads to inefficiencies and reduced care - at a greater cost. I don't believe that bears to be true...so I'm interested in other people's experiences that actually *do* live in those systems - where they support it with some form of tax to ensure everyone is covered - vs. paying some private company to ensure only they are covered.

 

[7thKeeper]

As for "free healthcare" - of course nothing is free. However - what we're talking about is subrogated risk (which is what all insurance - whether it be nationalized or privatized - works off of). That's what I'm interested in. People here claim that nationalized insurance leads to inefficiencies and reduced care - at a greater cost. I don't believe that bears to be true...so I'm interested in other people's experiences that actually *do* live in those systems - where they support it with some form of tax to ensure everyone is covered - vs. paying some private company to ensure only they are covered.

I'm pretty sure (at least I hope so) that everyone understands that nothing in life is free and the term "free healthcare" is just used to denote that in general, in that system you have to pay close to zero on site since it is paid by your taxes.

I'm been lucky so far that I haven't had to deal with doctors or hospitals much in my life (been healthy, though I need to lose some weight now). My most recent experiences were the removal of my four wisdom teeth. Went to my university clinic and told them that I needed them removed (they weren't hurting and I told them so). Got an appointment with the dentist for next week and after seeing her, she agreed that they needed to be taken out. I was given a time for an x-ray of them at a hospital, little less than a month away since I wasn't an urgent case. Went there, got them taken and the x-rays were sent to the dentist. We agreed on them being taken out in two sets of two. First my left side and then the right after a few months from the first removal. Got all that done without a hitch and funnily enough, without any pain (I didn't ache one bit after they pulled the teeth out, even when the anesthesia wore out). How much did the removal of four teeth, plus x-ray, plus check ups to make sure the wounds weren't infected afterwards cost me? About 60$.

So I got no complaints. My girlfriend on the other hand has had some bad experiences with her dentist, mainly in the booking of times (has had confusion about when to come in and other stuff). But these kinds of individual stories exist in every system and quite frankly, besides possibly being interesting, are otherwise pointless and useless.