I think the horror of the our private payer system vs. your govt funded system is that it would be unthinkable here to have to wait 13 days for a lifesaving procedure done on an outpatient basis.

Regardless of insurance coverage, incidentally.

Even if the patient was stable and monitored? If Dad had needed immediate surgery he would have received it immediately. As it was, patients who already had scheduled operations took priority as he was considered safe.

I'm not asking this because I am trying to defend our system (which I have always admitted has faults) just to clarify.

I know in many countries in Europe he would have had his operation sooner because they have smaller waiting lists, as well as (effectively) free of charge. If he was unable to pay in the US (retired, fairly low pension) would he still have received immediate treatment if he was on a cardio ward?

On the other hand, the boss is scheduling cataract surgery 6 months out. Not life saving, though.

Had one, left in an ambulance.
Guess since I'm worth more dead then alive to my family I should just take the obvious route?
Thanks, I often forget that I am worthless and need a reminder.
Perhaps that's not what's going on here. You don't seem like the kinda' guy that wants us, who really can't live without help, to just be wheeled into the woods and left to die because we are just in the way of you busy, busy, folks, perhaps?
It's just we don't fit into that simplistic, everything can be answered by a soundbyte, universe that we love to have in our head, isn't it?
I know, because I'm one of those guys myself. Read my posts.
But the idea that private businesses and families will really maintain the roads and schools and help the sick better than a social system all over the nation equally is insane.
I am a libertarian, I really am, but I am also moderate in some of my ideals. I do not think if we give a free hand to everyone all the time it will "all just work out in the end".
I believe, and have always believed that we are, at heart "how we treat the least of us". I never thought that would describe myself and am still quite objective about this.
But seriously, let me see... who was it that killed the disabled in their nation because they did not fit into the plan... hmmm... snappy dresser... it'll come to me...

You want to know what it really is, we/I remind you of your mortality, and that needs to go away. That is what a part of your mind whispers to you as soon as I wheel into the room, as soon as someone finds out how sick I am and especially that I am in chronic pain and cannot be helped.
They always start asking can "this" or "that" or "this" be done and then they want to go.
Mortality, something we are not accustomed to dealing with, not wired to, and I and those like me are a cold splash of water on your little immortality delusion.... and working that into your world view is just not an option because you just don't like the idea that you may have to become part of it someday.
It would take a week for your money to go away, a turn of the socio-political tide, insurance can end and move, things change... encouraging others and society to care for those less fortunate than they are and those who cannot care for themselves for generations lasts and is all we can truly do to ensure that we care for ourselves as we age and get sick.
Something at which the West is pathetic.

AH! AH! I CALL GODWIN.

Wait! Wasn't he talking about repubicans?

What's the difference?

Well said rkzenrage.

Well I don't know you and I am new here, and you certainly don't know me, but it really does not change my view on things. I am sorry for your situation but taking my wealth and redistributing it to help every poor, disadvantaged, or handicapped person in the US is not an answer. My wife is handicapped. I happen to be lucky enough to take care of her and what ever she needs. She is not "as handicapped" as you sound since there are differing degrees of disability. The one thing that I have learned is that everyone, and I mean everyone, is one paycheck away from your situation. You have made a lot of assumptions about the way I feel from just a few posts. Maybe in time you, and others will see me differently, maybe not, but that is really not important to me.

We have some big issues to face in this country in the next 50 years. I will be dead and gone by then. I too am worth a lot more to my family dead, but that is because of huge insurance policies I pay for to take care of them in case of my untimely demise. No matter how you cut the mustard it is not a governments job to take care of every persons needs. I have no illusions of rescuing people. I just try to help out the ones around me that I can. But I will not do so at the expense of my own family or children. It is my responsibility as a parent to give them the best shot that I can in life. I work very hard to do that. I make enough to send my oldest to out of state college, but not because I have the cash on hand, but because I had to take out loans for her to send her. Choices were made. I also don't think self pity will get you very far. There are a ton of people a lot worse off than your situation sounds (from what I have gathered from this single post - not much I admit), and they seem to be doing very well. Anyhow, good luck.

On this thought, having been to the UK a few times and recently returning from a trip in Nov, I did notice that Europeans seem to do a really good job at caring for the elderly and disabled. Maybe I was fooled. But from what I saw it was more of a general attitude among the people that the elderly, esp, were more respected. Of course remember that we have states more than twice the size and economy of the UK, so maybe it is easier becasue of that. I don't know.

The answer is yes, we have medicad and medicare. It will cover those costs, at a loss to the hospital I will say, but it will cover them. The problem here for people not receiving care is not among the poor but among the working poor and lower middle class who are under insured. I still say the answer is not a system like you have in the US or in Canada. These issues are not simplistic. You can not simply take a place the size of the US and apply solutions that apply to a country or economy the size of the UK. There are soooo many differences.

From your posts that I've read, I think this is the difference between you and me.

You don't want your wealth redistributed to the poor, disadvantaged, or handicapped people, and I'm ok with some of what little wealth I have helping out those folks. Including your wife, even though her husband's on-line persona comes across as heartless.

I don't want my wealth redistributed to those who are wealthy already, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, the executives of ENRON, Worldcom, Tyco, Chrysler, any airline, Big Oil, any religious-associated groups, politicians, and I may get back to you with some others, and you apparently don't mind helping out those folks.

And if you weren't that lucky....?

I think it is the state's job to make sure everyone can get decent health care. The state needs to invest in some issues and lay off others.

I would agree with you. If I weren't that lucky I guess we would come up with another plan or be on the dole like others not so lucky.


I am not heartless. Just discussing the broader view of things.

And quick to reconsider when the shoe is on the other foot. :right:

As I stated earlier, the idea is not to do that.

Why would you say that??? I have never been asked.:rolleyes: Ass-u-mptions... And both of my shoes are on the correct feet. :D

You were asked just now, and you said that you'd change your position if you were in the other situation.

Because you said:

Is there a point to be made here?? :worried: :D

No I have not changed my position. What I said was that I would use the system currently in place.

As are the people currently using the system. And they're welcome to it.

Absolutely, that was not the point of the discussion.

So taking your wealth and redistributing it to them is the answer?

No. Taking more of my wealth than they already take is not the answer. The discussion is about plans to institute a program similar to NHS or a Canadian model. It is about diverting and increasing taxes to establish a free health care for all system.

How about diverting what is currently given out in Corporate welfare and tax breaks for the very wealthy?

Selectively, I would agree with some realignment. What is wealthy?
When does my income become one of the wealthy?
100k, 200k, 300k, 400k, 500k, 600k, 700k?

I support a system of flat tax or Fair Tax.

When does the roll back of corprate tax breaks drive more industry out of the US and further cripple our economy? If very large corporations close more factories and industry and thousands more lose jobs and go on the dole would it still have been worth it to you to roll back those tax breaks?