Ram, take a deep breath and half a Valium...
Americans narrowly vote to have healthcare
(39 posts) (16 voices)
No, I'm enjoying this-but i'll still have the Valiun, Ta chuck
Soilaized medicine was great when all they could do for you was give you a couple of aspirins and send you home to die. They can atually help you live now.
America is a totally different world from your world. You have no idea until you live here.
I absolutely know that those who can ($$$) from all over the world come here when they need the best medical help. Just last month, a Canadian provincial premier came here for a routine heart procedure. If he stayed in Canada, he would most likely be dead now. Please keep your foolish socialism to yourselves.
I know Rikky baby you're not trying to be sarcastic and are totally serious in what you say. So am I when I say you really do not know what you're talking about so don't criticise our system of looking after those less fortunate than the most healthy or the most able to afford health insurance. When your nation adopts a more caring attitude you may even be the more respected for it, and God knows you need a bit more of that, rather than hatred and pity. (this is not written with a smiley face)
No one would dispute that US healthcare is top notch if you have the money to pay for it. There are often local news stories in the UK about people raising money to send a sick child to the states for some cutting edge treatment, but that tends to be because it isn't done here at all in the NHS or private sector. The reason for this is likely more to do with the US having more money than the UK to throw at things and 5 times or more the population of the UK so it becomes more viable to develop treatments that affect a low percentage of the population. I'm sure the proft motive is also a big driver, the US medical industry can attract paying customers from all over the world so it's worth investing in medicine, but then again plenty of people the world over head to Harley street as well for UK experts. As soon as the cutting edge stuff gets more routine it generally makes it's way into the UK private system, then the NHS. The NHS isn't a Rolls Royce, if you want that you have to pay, but it's a fairly reliable familly runabout. It may well be a bit of a gas guzzler in need of a retune, but that's a whole other argument.
I just find it odd that a country like the US could find it acceptable to leave such a large chunk of it's population with little or no healthcare provision, even basic stuff, outside of the work of charities. Apart from anything else, surely it makes little ecconomic sense to let a large chunk of workers and consumers slide into poverty and unproductivity for the want of at least basic care.
Neither system seems ideal. The US medical industry tends to over test and over proscribe because it makes money, while under the NHS you have to read up and kick ass to get anything beyond the basics in case it breaks the local PCC budget.
Still, the US and the UK may share a common language but we have very different ideas about the role of the state and govt. You can send us your lefties (maybe not Michael Moore) to see if it puts them off the idea, just so long as you keep Murdoch and Fox news.
Blah, blah, blah, blah. Keep your NHS, just don't help foist it on us. Oh, and I'm pretty sure that Rupert Murdoch is a Canadian or some such thing. Explains a lot.
Serious question. Why aren't all the subsidies that American farmers receive considered 'socialism'? I'm making a wild guess here, but I suspect your average American farmer is against, rather than for Obamacare, and yet is happy to receive taxpayers' money.
Murdoch was Australian but became a US citizen in 1985 in order to own tv channels there, hence my comment that the US can keep him.
You must log in to post.