Sick Medical Care

Post Reply New Topic

That does sort of get annoying... I remember when the Japanese started bitching about a cull of koalas (they eat themselves to extinction, otherwise). Also, Russians keep whining about the kangaroo meat industry.
Indonesia keeps complaining to Australia to keep our military away from there: The Timorese are still annoyed we didn't do enough military intervention, other nations whining about our involvments in Afghanistan, Iraq, the current Timorese problem etc, etc.

The point is; any power with any sort of media attention will likely find themselves subject to criticism. The only reason it seems to have more impact with America is largely America's current power (I say current because anyone with little economic knowledge knows where America will be in 2058).

But, really, it's up to your own governments, politicians and voters. That doesn't mean ignore information or advice from other nations, of course, but it does mean evaluate the circumstances based on what would be ideal for your nation specifically, and decide based upon those factors.

On a purely selfish level, your country is a burden on the world's economy at present. Your government has borrowed $9,000,000,000,000 of other countries' money. Your people have borrowed the same amount and a lot of this debt is owned by European banks. If you were responsible enough to elect a efficient government that discouraged these practices, then no one would have any interest.

In Ireland we have two-tiered health system. Public for all, Private for those who can afford it. It works reasonably well but I would prefer nationalised, universal healthcare.

[quote="corroonb"
On a purely selfish level, your country is a burden on the world's economy at present. Your government has borrowed $9,000,000,000,000 of other countries' money. Your people have borrowed the same amount and a lot of this debt is owned by European banks. If you were responsible enough to elect a efficient government that discouraged these practices, then no one would have any interest. [/quote]
No, our government has borrowed 2.25 trillion of other country's money, not 9 trillion. Most US debt is internally held. Not only that, but if our people have borrowed money, your people were irresponsible enough to lend that money! Really though, lending practices are not necessarily that negative and most countries have a significant amount of debt. Ireland for instance has a few billion dollars worth of national debt, and your country has a rather low percent of debt. France has at least a trillion dollars of national debt, and Japan has about twice it's GDP's worth of national debt. So, really, most nations have a lot of national debt, so I don't think that this is purely a matter of responsibility for the government, otherwise the entire world tends towards irresponsibility. I'd say that this is a matter of government's inability to be truly efficient.

And yet the same could be said about public schools, or public transportation, or any number of services that you or your direct circle might not rely on and others do.... many of which are not quite as essential as health care, while still being important enough to provide for with public funding. So why should health care, which most people will need at some point in their life, not be given the same priority?



Maybe I didn't phrase it right, but what I was getting at is BECAUSE many people can't go to a doctor whenever they need to (because honestly, I don't know why someone would just go for the fun of it), they end up flooding the emergency room with problems like having the cold or something that could be handled with a simple prescription of antibiotics, therefore driving the wait time up for people with severe problems like heart attacks and massive blood loss. Even getting an appointment with a specialist and getting things done in a timely manner isn't as easy as it is made to sound here in the U.S. I've been there. Apparently money isn't enough incentive for many doctors to do things in a timely manner, let alone with much decency or bedside manners for their patients. If I'm going to get crappy, slow service, at least I don't want to have to pay huge amounts for it.



The difference between actors and athletes getting paid obscene sums of money and drug companies is that you don't need movies or sports to live. Well, most people don't. In some of the more extreme cases, it's as if the companies are holding your health and life for ransom. Quite immoral to do so, if you ask me. It's sick, taking a profession meant to heal people and making it mercenary, not caring if people die if they can't pay up.

Furthermore, there already is smuggling due to the high prices. Again, I'm not sure how much price caps and federal funding could hurt the situation. I've heard tell of countless people going up to Canada to buy their drugs, or actually get medical treatment there if needed. One person I know goes down to Mexico every month to buy her drugs at a fraction of what they cost here. If they lowered the prices here to a reasonable amount, at least people would buy them off the actual makers at all. People aren't just going to roll over and die because they can't afford insane prices, nor should they be expected to.



In many cases, this is true, that government is inefficient. But in other situations, either the private sector is so bad that you might as well have bad and free than bad and expensive, or the public equivalent actually, somehow, miraculously works. At a certain point, trying something new and then tearing it down if it doesn't work has got to be better than just putting up with a terrible system.

I see no reason why our system should not and cannot be comparable to how schools work, where there are both private and public schools (which, looking up the Singapore health care system, seems to be the case). That does, however, imply a certain level of socialization, which some people here seem to be completely against. So how much is too much?