An American Cry for Help: Death vs Life Panels

[AJ Rimmer]

Those who give up their freedom for security will soon have neither.

What freedom? What rights are you relinquishing? The right to not go to a public hospital, which you will still have?

I want to see the smiles of those I help...

Cool, it's good of you to admit that you're selfish.

 

[Noodle]

It's a form of guilt-run collectivism. These systems thrive on little more than using primitive guilt to force others to help them out with little in return, tying one man's very worth only to the success of his neighbors. Personally, I find that sickening.

 

[Solaris]

It's a form of guilt-run collectivism. These systems thrive on little more than using primitive guilt to force others to help them out with little in return, tying one man's very worth only to the success of his neighbors. Personally, I find that sickening.

Do you support a socialised fire service? And Schools? Road Maintaince? What's the difference?!?

 

[lord_raken]

But you don't understand that here in the UK, we have a world class fully nationalise health care system. It costs less per person than the US, and everyone gets treatment - for free.

I really could not be a bigger fan of it, it's the UK's greatest treasure imo.

Ok, I'm going to back off and start asking some honest question.

That's great. Its a good thing that people can get care, but its not free. You pay through your taxes, and I can assure you that there are shortcomings (as there are with any system).

Questions:
How much do you pay a year through taxes?
Is the tax progressive or flat?
What is the average tax rate in the UK?
Are there limits to the amount of coverage one can receive?
How well are the doctors paid?
How do you keep the Pharmaceutical companies from "pushing diagnosis" so that their drugs will have a market?
Are there waiting lists and if so for what kind of procedures or treatments?
Are there ANY private insurance companies? What happened to them?
Do you have enough doctors?
What kind of budget is there for researching new technology and treatments? (private industry is the leading developer in advances in medication)
What is the rate of misdiagnosed illnesses?
Are doctors protected under malpractice insurance of any kind?

I could ask hundreds of the question. What flaws in your system do you see?

 

[Sparta]

I do have an honest question: Why not do more to regulate pharmaceuticals and put various price controls in place. Expand government INSURANCE to the the low end of the income scale, as well as those with varified pre-existing conditions.

Oh, and tort reform. I know it's small, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. It would lower the cost of malpractice insurance greatly, and thus lower the cost of more basic care.

The drug price control laws aren't happening because the pharmaceutical industry has spent billions of dollars lobbying congress to make sure that doesn't happen, while at the same time contributing to campaign re-election funds for the senators and congressmen and women who support their needs and stop these kinds of laws that would save the government and the consumer billions of dollars in over-priced expenses.

Tort reform would help somewhat, but not as significantly as Republicans would have you believe.

Those who give up their freedom for security will soon have neither. Those who become dependent on the government for their financial and physical well being are controlled by it.

This is bollocks.

You already rely on the government for your physical well-being in almost every other aspect of your life. The regulate and maintain the roads you drive on, make sure the water you drink is safe to drink, they make sure the food you eat is fit to eat (although the U.S. seem to be fairly loose about that), they'll save your house from burning down if it's on fire and they'll chase and arrest the guys who've robbed you while protecting you from foreign terrorists who want to blow you up.

All of that is already going on and has been going on for centuries, and it's all done through government and it's all paid for through taxes. If you think you're not already dependent on the government for your physical well-being, you are literally delusional.

 

[Solaris]

Questions:
How much do you pay a year through taxes? - Nothing, I'm an unemployed student, just sales tax of 17.5%

Is the tax progressive or flat? - As far as I'm aware, there's no special tax, we have a progressive tax scale

What is the average tax rate in the UK? -I imagine it's about 25-35%


Are there limits to the amount of coverage one can receive? - None, except u might wait a little while. (which are pretty high)

How well are the doctors paid? It depends on how many patients they treat and how successful they are, usually about £100,000. The average wage here is £23,000

How do you keep the Pharmaceutical companies from "pushing diagnosis" so that their drugs will have a market? - They don't advertise, if a doctor prescribes a drug, you go to the pharmacy and pay £4 something a packet. On all medicines.

Are there waiting lists and if so for what kind of procedures or treatments?
- Yes, sometimes lists can last weeks, if months, but in cancer care etc. it can be quite quick. Few people die becuase they're stuck on the list.

Are there ANY private insurance companies? What happened to them?
- Sure, Bupa to name one.

Do you have enough doctors?
-Pretty much, never heard much about a shortage. I have several friends at uni studyin medicine, i imagine most will stay within the NHS too.

What kind of budget is there for researching new technology and treatments? (private industry is the leading developer in advances in medication) - I don't know the answer to this

What is the rate of misdiagnosed illnesses?
- Again, I don't know, but i can be requested under the freedom of information bill.

Are doctors protected under malpractice insurance of any kind?
- I think so

I could ask hundreds of the question. What flaws in your system do you see?

As a big government beast, it can be stupidly beurcratic. Recently they spent billions on a new computer system that was ****ing useless.

 

[Matt Isaacs]

As a UK citizen I will do my best to answer all of your questions in as much detail as possible.

As a student I pay nothing at the moment through taxes. What little I do earn over summer is below the lowest tax bracket (£2320) and so my 10% that gets taken off gets reimbursed when I fill out a form at the end of the tax year. I also pay 17.5% VAT on each purchase.

The tax in the UK is a progressive tax now with 4 tax brackets: low 10% £0 - £2,440, Basic tax rate 20% - £0 - £37,400, Higher Rate 40% - Over £37,400, increased Higher Rate, i think now 50% - Over £150,000 from April 2010.

I do not know the figures but the median average would be 20% of income plus the other various taxes. A quick google search stated that the average Briton paid £4060 in tax per year.

There are limits to what and treatments are allowed on the nhs. These include cancer drugs which cost approx £10000 per course. Drugs are decided to be cost effective or not by an independent body and are challenge-able in court and there have been many instances where decisions have been canceled. Also treatments such as IVF are only available in some areas as it is the local trusts decision on what services it provides. Under no circumstances however can the nhs refuse to treat someone with approved treatments.

The top consultants in the country are paid up to about £170000 whereas a junior doctor would start on £33000. There is a wide range of salaries between that depending on the type of doctor and experience. Also nhs doctors can also work for private hospitals as well if they want to further increase their earnings.

Pharmaceutical companies have no say in what drugs are approved for use, the prescribed by doctors. Their role is to make the drug, justify every part about it explain completely what it is, what it does, and back up these claims with studies. After that they have no say.

There are many waiting lists. Some for procedures such as transplants where the problem is not lack of doctors but lack of organs required. The majority of other waiting lists are for non-essential surgery (ie surgery which is not needed but will improve quality of life). This in my opinion is fair enough as I would expect someone with a life threatening condition to have priority over someone with a shoulder injury.

There are many private insurance companies in the UK running perfectly well. for example BUPA. A lot of these are complementary to nhs coverage and if waiting lists are too long the insurance company will pay for your care privately.

Yes we have easily enough doctors currently and as medicine is one of the most over subscribed courses we will have enough doctors for the forseeable future.

The budget for researching new tech and treatments is exactly the same as the US and every other country. This is because the complexities of drug making requires the multi-national pharmaceutical companies to put the billions in to create the new drugs. These are then sold to the nhs. This I think is the same way all healthcare systems work.

I do not know how many misdiagnoses are made by the nhs but i do know the figure for the 'developed world' which is 15%. I have no reason to suspect that the UKs values is significantly higher than that.

Doctors are supported by the nhs, any lawsuits will be paid by the nhs and an investigation into the doctor in question will start. If the doctor is found to have been negligent then he will invariably be struck off the medical register.

Finally yes of course I see flaws in healthcare in the UK as in any other orginisation but I see far far more in the American system. I won't go into specific criticisms of the UK system as that would make an already tl;dr several pages long but I like most people are not blindly devoted to socialised healthcare but we are appreciative of what it does for us.

 

[lord_raken]

Edit: (how do I delete a post?)

 

[Dan]

Government highways are socialism. Everybody should be free to build and use their own roads wherever the want to go. If the private company that owns and built the road to your job want to charge you $500/month to use it, then that is capitalism at work.

Everyone should have the right to choose to drive on the road that they want. If the government were to take over the highway system, then the wealthiest citizens would be taxed the most and end up paying the majority of the money to pave the roads for dirt poor farmers and their hog trailers.

What if I want to pay to drive on the best 20 lane empty freeway I can afford? Isn't that my right? It is ridiculous that I would have to share the same road as everyone else. Keep the government off my highway.

 

[Sparta]

Government highways are socialism. Everybody should be free to build and use their own roads wherever the want to go. If the private company that owns and built the road to your job want to charge you $500/month to use it, then that is capitalism at work.

Everyone should have the right to choose to drive on the road that they want. If the government were to take over the highway system, then the wealthiest citizens would be taxed the most and end up paying the majority of the money to pave the roads for dirt poor farmers and their hog trailers.

What if I want to pay to drive on the best 20 lane empty freeway I can afford? Isn't that my right? It is ridiculous that I would have to share the same road as everyone else. Keep the government off my highway.

For a start, this is a poor choice for an analogy. To get into why is being pedantic, so i'll simply say that and you can figure out why on your own. Now, let's go onto why your argument is flawed.

The government health-care that's being proposed in the U.S. won't eliminate all privately owned competition. It won't eliminate any of it. It simply allows the government to pay for the insurance of people who otherwise cannot afford private insurance. I personally think it's not the kind of health-care reform the U.S. needs, but at least its a step in the right direction and will ultimately allow up to 35 million people to be covered for health-care.

Even in country's that have a universal health-care system, there is still private insurance and that does allow more preferential treatment. In Australia, private insurance obviously costs more but the benefits are things like lesser waiting times and private rooms instead of public rooms. The one thing that never happens in Australia, is that people simply do not go bankrupt from health-care bills in anywhere near the same capacity as the US. I've never even heard of it happening over here, I almost don't believe that it could happen.

 

[GreatEmperor]

The problem with paying for it is this:
-The potential abuse of health-care in America is greater, mostly since we have too many damn fat people.
-Any taxes imposed to make up for the cost would most likely be added as a progressive income tax, which I am wholly against. A flat tax increase or sales tax would be better.

I do have an honest question: Why not do more to regulate pharmaceuticals and put various price controls in place. Expand government INSURANCE to the the low end of the income scale, as well as those with varified pre-existing conditions.

Oh, and tort reform. I know it's small, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. It would lower the cost of malpractice insurance greatly, and thus lower the cost of more basic care.

OOOOOkay lets see here

Government can regulate pharmaceuticals AND have a one-payer system, it would also increase the impetus to do this since they would be the ones paying them directly and more regulation would reduce the cost of this agency. In short both are possible and,in fact, concurrent.

A business wont lower costs until its profits are threatened by refusal to pay the cost by the consumer. They are making obscene profits not just squeaking by, tort reform would merely make their profits greater not make them lower the cost, since their services are essential

Flat tax is a bad decision, people should be taxed by how much of a burden it is

 

[Noodle]

Do you support a socialised fire service? And Schools? Road Maintaince? What's the difference?!?

Poor analogy. Those are used by everyone, out of necessity. Fewer people are in actual need of socialized health-care. As well, the people paying for it the most are the ones that need it the least.

Another question: what becomes the motivation for pharma-companies to continue their current rate of research if the price and related profit of medicine is forcefully reduced? It would take a while, but it's a logical thought to assume that the research in the private sector will eventually run towards reducing the overall costs of medicine.

Flat tax is a bad decision, people should be taxed by how much of a burden it is

In other words, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

I could ramble on for days about the... pure bullshit evil horrible qualities of that statement, but it's been done so many times already.

 

[Solaris]

Poor analogy. Those are used by everyone, out of necessity. Fewer people are in actual need of socialized health-care. As well, the people paying for it the most are the ones that need it the least.


In other words, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

I could ramble on for days about the... pure bullshit evil horrible qualities of that statement, but it's been done so many times already.

What? As far as I'm aware, the USA hasn't always had socialised fire services either, you used to pay private companies and put a plaque on your house. If you didn't have a plaque, they didn't come and put out your fire.

Again, only the poor had a need for a socialised system as they couldn't afford fire protection.

And come one, you're communist scares are not only incomprahensable to me, they're also idiotic and pointless. The UK and other countries are not communist evil beasts becuase they have nationalised healthcare.

 

[GreatEmperor]

Ok, I'm going to back off and start asking some honest question.

That's great. Its a good thing that people can get care, but its not free. You pay through your taxes, and I can assure you that there are shortcomings (as there are with any system).

Questions:
How much do you pay a year through taxes?
Is the tax progressive or flat?
What is the average tax rate in the UK?
Are there limits to the amount of coverage one can receive?
How do you keep the Pharmaceutical companies from "pushing diagnosis" so that their drugs will have a market?
Are there ANY private insurance companies? What happened to them?

I could ask hundreds of the question. What flaws in your system do you see?

A better question to ask is "how could ours be improved" our system doesn't have to mirror theirs and we spend so damn much wastefully already that even a small percentage of that spending would give us a system vastly better funded than other nations. They seem quite happy with theirs BTW while ours is a source of discontent for good reason.

Private insurance companies are poisonous to our economic well-being as they are, them letting some people go to adjust is not a terrible event considering how much better off the general citizenry will be by reining them in. Too big to fail is a retards argument in any form. They will adapt and deprivation is what keeps business revolutionizing.

Regulation is a better way to rein in pharmaceutical companies, the government does that not insurance

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Poor analogy. Those are used by everyone, out of necessity.

That's ridiculous, I've never used the fire department and I don't see why I should have to pay for it. Besides, a government-run fire department would be woefully inefficient, and a lot of money would go to waste just because some people can't be bothered to turn off their lights at night. I shouldn't have to pay for other people's idiocy, right?

The UK and other countries are not communist evil beasts becuase they have nationalised healthcare.

This.

 

[GreatEmperor]

Poor analogy. Those are used by everyone, out of necessity. Fewer people are in actual need of socialized health-care. As well, the people paying for it the most are the ones that need it the least.

Another question: what becomes the motivation for pharma-companies to continue their current rate of research if the price and related profit of medicine is forcefully reduced? It would take a while, but it's a logical thought to assume that the research in the private sector will eventually run towards reducing the overall costs of medicine.



In other words, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

I could ramble on for days about the... pure bullshit evil horrible qualities of that statement, but it's been done so many times already.

Oh yes because were getting great leaps in medical science and not just boner pills

But obviously a rewards system could be worked out, it would also keep them from worthlessly altering their formula and repackaging it.

Youre starting to rant with this anti-socialism propaganda, comparing it to the Soviet Union is not accurate. Megalomaniacs and power grabbing brought about the horrible events i think you are alluding to with little cause

 

[Sulkdodds]

I see this argument that 'socialised' medicine will impose higher taxes, and it's insane. Let's ignore the questions of whether current taxes could be directed to a more useful purpose than buying nuclear missiles or ruining entire countries with frivolous occuptations. Even if extra taxes were imposed we're talking about a minor burden, regularly exacted, reliable every year. You cannot tell me that such a burden would be more harmful to anyone's livelihood than either A) the constant threat of crippling medical bills, and, potentially, bankruptcy - or B) no healthcare at all, because it's just too expensive a luxury to consider.

That has the knock-on effect, by the way, of making sure there is less money generally going into the system. The problem with voluntary health insurance is that many people, young people, poor people, whatever, will decide that either they do not need to pay or that they cannot afford to pay or both. So then there's far less money going into the system to sustain it, and that's harmful to the system itself, and then less people will be willing to pay for it...

But everyone needs it at some point in their lives (Noodle's claim that more people need the fire service than need doctors is laughable). And some need it more than others. Self-confessed libertarians can mouth of all they want about freedom of personal choice. But ask yourself why you believe that. Presumably it's because you enshrine responsibility. You think people should have freedom because that will mean that anything good that happens to them is of their own work and anything bad that happens to them is their own fault. They're not being oppressed or bootstrapped by anyone.

But capitalism - or at least the form the USA operates - does not give people freedom of choice. This is a general point, but specifically relevant to healthcare. The way things are right now, ordinary people are taken out of 'competition' by circumstances that are beyond their control. Catch a disease or have a heart attack, as many people do without having significantly debauched lifestyles? Too bad. Your family's bankrupt. Or just happen to be born with a congenital disorder? Sorry. Pre-existing condition. My girlfriend has a twitchy immune system; her whole family does. I might want to go and live in America at some point, but moving there with her would be difficult or even impossible because her body would pretty much guarantee a huge healthcare cost being slapped onto our budget at some point - an extra cost we can ill afford.

I'm being stunningly obvious here, but then some of you seem stunningly oblivious to the fact that right now things aren't working. If the market is supposed to be able to provide for these people, it doesn't seem to be bothering, and anyway, since a corporation is based on profit, how is a corporation supposed to guarantee life over death to a person with no money? If the current state of affairs has come into being with the help of the government it is because the companies are in the government, effectively operating a State thick with lobbyists. It is because the U.S. economy is not a competetive conflict-driven happy liberal democracy. It is a systematic conspiracy of the rich against everybody else. It is a conspiracy of the few to syphon wealth upwards away from the many. The decrease in social mobility and the increase in rich/poor disparity over the last 30 years are not a coincidence. They are tied up with the theories that claim the open market is the best engine for justice - exactly the theories which ascribe natural and practical meritocracy to a market which works towards the opposite - a state where millions of people are arbitrarily and involuntarily refused a chance at success or material sufficiency. Why the fuck shouldn't they have equality of opportunity? Why the fuck should they ever have to choose between their lives and their livelihoods? Why the fuck shouldn't the state or the rich or 'the rest of us' or all of them in some small way pay to keep them alive? Doesn't it make them better citizens? Doesn't it make them better customers? Anyway your fathers thought so.

 

[Solaris]

Fantastic post Sulkdudds!

 

[Sparta]

Poor analogy. Those are used by everyone, out of necessity. Fewer people are in actual need of socialized health-care. As well, the people paying for it the most are the ones that need it the least.

It's not a poor analogy at all, especially when most people will go through their entire lives without their house being burnt down, yet we still pay for the fire department to protect everyone's homes, even if our home is never threatened by fire in any way whatsoever. We pay for it so it's there for us when we need it, should we ever.

Another question: what becomes the motivation for pharma-companies to continue their current rate of research if the price and related profit of medicine is forcefully reduced? It would take a while, but it's a logical thought to assume that the research in the private sector will eventually run towards reducing the overall costs of medicine.

Having the government control drug prices will certainly put a dent in their profit margins, so it is indeed likely that drug research will be hindered. However, most of the remarkable medical breakthroughs that have come through the private sector have had little to no funding from the pharmaceutical sector, as these breakthroughs have historically relied far more on research grants from the government, philanthropists and philanthropic organizations to fund their research. Not to mention most of that kind of research is largely done at privately owned universities with some aid in federal funding. These universities pay for these research grants from donations and student bills. The pharmaceutical industry has little to no influence there.

Jonas Salk created the polio vaccine while researching at the University of Pittsburgh for the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, an organization founded by Franklin Roosevelt to develop a cure for polio. What's remarkable is that Jonas Salk research that created this vaccine was funded largely by charity and the University of Michigan, not by the privatized pharmaceutical industry. The other thing that's truly remarkable about Jonas Salk, is that he didn't patent the polio vaccine.

So while it's safe to assume the pharmaceutical industry will take a hit and research into drugs will be stalled somewhat, I'd say it's also safe to assume that groundbreaking work on the kinds of drugs that would make a significant difference to society, will most likely not be affected as much as it seems.

 

[Dan]

There are two facts that really clinches the whole debate:

Americans pay more money per person for health care than any other nation.

Americans have worse health care than most western nations. According to the WHO, the US is ranked last among 14 nations for preventable deaths, 24th for life expectancy, overall ranking of 72 when accessibility of health care is considered, just below Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Is this a problem? Apparently not.

The whole point of having a government, is that in some cases, you can do things more efficiently if you pool your resources. If it makes economic sense, if everyone pays less in the long run and gets more in return, then what is the problem?

 

[dfc05]

I have to admit that growing up, I never understood that there was a problem with health care because my dad had health insurance which covered all of us and nothing really bad ever happened.

Then one time I got a little knee infection. Went to the doctor at my university's clinic and was prescribed two different antibiotics to take simultaneously, one of which I was allergic to. They took me off that antibiotic and put me on steroids to stop the burning, except they happened to be addictive steroids that are dangerous to stop taking unless you step-down your dosage. A week later, I'm ready to go back and get prescribed for my steroid step-down, but the doctor thinks I should see a specialist and refuses to give me a prescription to safely get off the steroids. I go to the dermatologist, and she spends FIVE MINUTES looking at it and says "Oh, it's ok." That five minutes cost me over $100, not covered by insurance.

I don't know a whole lot about health care, but that just seems utterly retarded. Not only did it cost $100 for five minutes, but I didn't even receive any medical treatment. God forbid anyone ever be forced to see a specialist.

Also, my dad just lost his job (and the health insurance) last year. I don't know if my parents are buying health insurance now or not.

 

[Dan]

I visited emergency in Alabama with a broken collarbone. The bill was $800 to sit in a room for 4 hours, get an x-ray and a sling, no meds, no other care or treatment. I later saw that same sling in a pharmacy for $15. I spoke with a doctor for all of 2 minutes. Radiology later billed me $27 for the cost of reading my x-ray. What was the rest of the cost??. I billed it to my travel insurance and forgot about it.

 

[Kaptain H]

My feelings towards healthcare are reflected in my experience. I have no health insurance, and the only healthcare I have access to is the VA.

It sometimes takes over a month to see a doctor, and I'm usually subjected to random cancellations without my knowledge.

Getting a second opinion is nearly impossible due to the limitation of having to be seen at the VAMC, and treatment is always the cheapest option (i.e. "we don't know what is causing the problem, so take 12 tablets of ibuprofen a day for three months"). I have a service-connected injury, and I've stopped going to the Dallas VA because the only treatment they wll offer me at this point is the removal of nerves from my right hand.

However, free surgery! After the five years it took to discover the cause of my injury, (which did happen to be clearly visible in an x-ray), I didn't have to pay a dime, not even the bus trip to Manhattan or the free shuttle home. All I had to put up with was nasty hospital staff mocking me in the recovery room, digging pins out of my bones while I was awake, and huge scars.

So, while I may have to rely on a terrible, ineffecient system, I guess my thoughts are that I'm grateful for it as it's certainly better than nothing. I probably wouldn't be able to draw anymore and in constant pain without that care, or so far in debt from bills that I wouldn't have even considered graduate school. That's why I'd like to see at least some level of basic care provided for all citizens, even if it's not the best that they deserve.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Wait, weren't you in the military? Doesn't that mean anything to the system?

 

[Kaptain H]

Wait, weren't you in the military? Doesn't that mean anything to the system?

Well yeah, it means I get free healthcare, as long as I'm treated at the VA. It's just "military quality", that's the only catch. And if I lose a limb three states over from the nearest VA hospital, that could be a problem. :>

 

[Sparta]

Haha shit, Dan, I actually thought your earlier response was a real post. I'm so used to hearing people say that kind of stuff that I can't even tell what's real and what's a parody anymore.

 

[Dan]

There are two facts that really clinches the whole debate:

Americans pay more money per person for health care than any other nation.

Americans have worse health care than most western nations. According to the WHO, the US is ranked last among 14 nations for preventable deaths, 24th for life expectancy, overall ranking of 72 when accessibility of health care is considered, just below Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Is this a problem? Apparently not.

The whole point of having a government, is that in some cases, you can do things more efficiently if you pool your resources. If it makes economic sense, if everyone pays less in the long run and gets more in return, then what is the problem?

This post? Yeah, I guess it was pretty funny wasn't it?

 

[Sparta]

I meant the one I replied to earlier in the thread, about highways and such

 

[falconwind]

I live in Canada. While I'm aware of our limitations and shortfalls, this was my experience.

A few years ago I had atypical appendicitis, though at the beginning, I didn't know what it was. It was the weekend, and my family doctor's office wasn't open, so I went to see a walk-in clinic. I showed them my Care Card (government issued medical ID) waited in line, and saw the doctor. He prescribed some off the shelf medication.
Later, the pain got worse. In the middle of the night, I went to the Emergency Room at the hospital. Again waited in line, showed my Care Card, explained my situation and was admitted immediately. I was given morphine and 30 minutes later I was getting an "X-Ray" probably a CT. An hour later I was wheeled into surgery and my appendix was removed laparoscopically.
I spent the next week recovering in a partitioned room with 3 other patients. I received saline, painkillers, antibiotics, and anti-nausea medication. My family doctor came to visit. I was discharged when I felt better. And I returned to work the next week.

The only thing I paid for was a bottle of Pepto Bismol. Never did it ever occur to me that I'd have to pay for any of the treatment.

If you're at all interested in how it works up here, you can find out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

Alternatively, you can also try this:

Citizenship and Immigration Canada

 

[Absinthe]

JESUS CHRIST, FALCONWIND

THAT'S THE MOST HORRID EXPERIENCE I'VE EVER HEARD. I WOULD NEVER WANT NATIONAL HEALTHCARE BECAUSE I'D RATHER BANKRUPT MYSELF TRYING TO KEEP MY ORGANS FROM BOTTOMING OUT OF MY ASSHOLE IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM.

 

[Raziaar]

I live in Canada. While I'm aware of our limitations and shortfalls, this was my experience.

A few years ago I had atypical appendicitis, though at the beginning, I didn't know what it was. It was the weekend, and my family doctor's office wasn't open, so I went to see a walk-in clinic. I showed them my Care Card (government issued medical ID) waited in line, and saw the doctor. He prescribed some off the shelf medication.
Later, the pain got worse. In the middle of the night, I went to the Emergency Room at the hospital. Again waited in line, showed my Care Card, explained my situation and was admitted immediately. I was given morphine and 30 minutes later I was getting an "X-Ray" probably a CT. An hour later I was wheeled into surgery and my appendix was removed laparoscopically.
I spent the next week recovering in a partitioned room with 3 other patients. I received saline, painkillers, antibiotics, and anti-nausea medication. My family doctor came to visit. I was discharged when I felt better. And I returned to work the next week.

The only thing I paid for was a bottle of Pepto Bismol. Never did it ever occur to me that I'd have to pay for any of the treatment.

If you're at all interested in how it works up here, you can find out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

Alternatively, you can also try this:

Citizenship and Immigration Canada

Here in the states you could expect a bill of around 10-60 thousand dollars for a routine appendectomy. Best hope you have god's own insurance provider in the states or you're gonna be ****ed up!

http://www.healthcarefees.com/inpatientSurgery/appendectomy.php

 

[CptStern]

my father in law was in florida a few weeks back. he felt sick enough that he went to see a doctor. the bill was over $1000 for a 15 min consultation. his benefits covered it. his benefits (he had worked for the government) in canada covered his treatment in the US