Socialized versus Capitalism healthcare and social ideas?

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Question, I can only point to one foreigner that posts regularly Debbie from Vancouver. Question to Debbie and other foreigners, what are the pros and cons of socialized healthcare? Second, do you have a plane ticket to come to US for medical treatment? Or do you believe that you need to come to the US for medical treatment?

Is the US superior in medical treatments and care? How does retirement work in foreign countries?

[rj.phila]

airplane ticket? are you serious? INTO the states? seems highly unlikely. other way around is more like it. you do know that in the developed world, the US health care system ranks #1 in cost and #37-DEAD LAST-in care(as ranked by infant mortality rates)?

i travel all the time for my work. im in countries with socialized health care systems all the time, i've had to visit their emergency rooms before. ive never paid more than $50 for an ER visit outside the US. last time i had an ER visit here-WITH HEALTH INSURANCE-4 stitches in a finger cost me $2700, out of pocket. our system is a joke.

you will have a hard time finding someone anywhere in EU or CA that will complain about the care. taxes/cost?yes, ive heard that. the actual care? hell no. never heard it once.

[maat55]

Originally Posted by LivingAlmostLarge

Question, I can only point to one foreigner that posts regularly Debbie from Vancouver. Question to Debbie and other foreigners, what are the pros and cons of socialized healthcare? Second, do you have a plane ticket to come to US for medical treatment? Or do you believe that you need to come to the US for medical treatment?

Is the US superior in medical treatments and care? How does retirement work in foreign countries?

I've only had asked one former Canadian what they thought of their healthcare system, and the answer I got was that they kept standby tickets for medical emergencies. I assume this for cases when they may want an MRI or other service not readily available in Canada.


My wife is indian. Her and my daugthers qualify for free healthcare through the indian department. When we were younger and had no insurance, we used the indian healthcare a few times and elected to buy insurance and go to the standard system due to long waits.

I have no beef with indian or Canadian healthcare, but I would rather have a fully free market healthcare. Our current system in the US is a half free/half socialist system. This is why it is defective.

[MonkeyMama]

Actually, I know a few people in Canada and haven't heard much good about the care there. The only good thing I have heard about the Canadian healthcare is that it is "free." Free with higher taxes.

I'm isolating Canada. I believe most of Europe has a much better healthcare system.

I also don't think the health care system ranking (dead last for U.S.) is fair. The point is people don't get care because it is expensive. It may be fair, to rank our system the worst in the industrialized world. BUT, it doesn't mean the healthcare would rank last if you actually utilized it.

Anyway, when I Was pregnant and hung around these type message boards re: pregnancy, there weren't very many Canadians pleased with their healthcare system. These days most people I talk to from Canada don't have much bad to say, but they also don't have any health issues or are not utilizing the system. The complaints I have heard were how it is impossible to see a doctor and get proper care. I am actually surprised Canada's infant mortality rate is lower than the U.S. after hearing over and over about the lack of adequate prenatal care. But, I suppose most Canadians will eventually get in to see a Doctor whereas many Americans will never see a Doctor due to the cost.

Actually, when it came to prenatal care it struck me as way overkill in the United States, compared to other women all over the world.

I also have to wonder how many countries are open to conceiving children at any cost. I know a fair number of people who have had stillbirths (supporting the high infant mortality rate in the U.S.), but most of them went to an inordinate degrees to conceive children they couldn't otherwise. Is that just in the U.S.?? Plus premature babies for the same reason - overly common any more. I am sure this is just one area where the cost of U.S. healthcare is spiraling out of control. But it's one example I see over and over in the middle class. If the lower classes are skipping the prenatal care, no wonder our infant mortality rate is so high.

Anyway, people certainly come to the U.S. for specialized procedures. When cost is no object...

[maat55]

Originally Posted by MonkeyMama

Actually, I know a few people in Canada and haven't heard much good about the care there. The only good thing I have heard about the Canadian healthcare is that it is "free." Free with higher taxes.

I'm isolating Canada. I believe most of Europe has a much better healthcare system.

I also don't think the health care system ranking (dead last for U.S.) is fair. The point is people don't get care because it is expensive. It may be fair, to rank our system the worst in the industrialized world. BUT, it doesn't mean the healthcare would rank last if you actually utilized it.

Anyway, when I Was pregnant and hung around these type message boards re: pregnancy, there weren't very many Canadians pleased with their healthcare system. These days most people I talk to from Canada don't have much bad to say, but they also don't have any health issues or are not utilizing the system. The complaints I have heard were how it is impossible to see a doctor. I am actually surprised Canada's infant mortality rate is lower than the U.S. after hearing over and over about the lack of adequate prenatal care. But, I suppose most Canadians will eventually get in to see a Doctor whereas many Americans will never see a Doctor due to the cost.

Actually, when it came to prenatal care it struck me as way overkill in the United States, compared to other women all over the world.

I also have to wonder how many countries are open to conceiving children at any cost. I know a large number of people who have had stillbirths (supporting the high infant mortality rate in the U.S.), but most of them went to an inordinate degrees to conceive children they couldn't otherwise. Is that just in the U.S.?? Plus premature babies for the same reason - overly common any more. I am sure this is just one area where the cost of U.S. healthcare is spiraling out of control. But it's one example I see over and over in the middle class. If the lower classes are skipping the prenatal care, no wonder our infant mortality rate is so high.

I personally, have no problem with the CHIP program. With that said, if healthcare were treated as any other comodity or service, it would be far more affordable in the US.

I compare the fact that most Canadians like their system over the US as no different than asking most americans if they prefer the current SS system over a private system. They no very little about either, but defend what has been familiar, despite the reality that it may be far inferior to a privatized system.

[asmom]

I communicate with a lot of Canadian nurses as well as British and Australian nurses through the nurses' boards and also with regular Canadians on other boards. I have never heard anyone speak of anything but relief that they do not have to rely on the US healthcare system. England's system is not well regarded in terms of quality but Canada is comparable to the US.

Also I work for a healthcare plan. Trust me it is all about the free market and making a buck. Americans only think they want health coverage based on the free market until they don't get what they want (or think they need). Most Americans including Republicans and Tea partiers want all the benefits of free market medicine without paying for it no matter what they claim on internet forums.

[MonkeyMama]

Originally Posted by MonkeyMama

I also have to wonder how many countries are open to conceiving children at any cost. I know a fair number of people who have had stillbirths (supporting the high infant mortality rate in the U.S.), but most of them went to an inordinate degrees to conceive children they couldn't otherwise.

Duh - I answered my own question. I forgot one of these friends was Canadian. She was also on the extreme side. (I am not talking about a little help needed to conceive - but piles of miscarriages, stillborns, premature babies, etc.).

[GREENBACK]

These socialist systems don't pay a little more in taxes but way, way more and they still seek us out for the most complicated procedures. I'm a U.S. citizen so I can't say how that works for the people of other countries but it doesn't seem all that great to me. I'd gladly pay more for routine visits and minor emergencies to lower costs. When you have a free system it creates the entitlement mentality that we all know so well.

[snafu]

Many Canadians and a lot of Americans have unrealistic views of the Canadian health system. The basic differences are: Healthcare is viewed as a necessity, available to all equally in Canada. It is funded as part of the tax system just like roads, bridges and police. Few hospitals are private, for profit and those are typically very specialized. Nearly all hospitals are supported by taxes. We do not pay health care insurance premiums and are covered for all regular services. We do not have an insurance hierarchy between people and health care. There is no issue about pre existing condition or problems changing employment insurance carrier.

True, we have a shortage of doctors. When they complete training, residence and specialty with more than half the cost tax supported...they succumb to extravagant offers in other countries...much to our chagrin. This is getting quite serious in smaller communities. In cities some people are coping via 24 hr. medical 'clinics.' They're efficient and practical but you see the next available doctor...not an established relationship with a specific physician. There is a 24/7 'HealthLink' with on-line and phone a nurse service. So many medical visits are not truly necessary,I call them re-assurance visits, no tests, no treatment, no prescriptions etc.

A lot of people choose to turn up at their local hospital's Emergency Service' which is an extremely expensive medical delivery system to solve a non urgent, non serious medical problem. The ER waiting room gets overloaded with people in non urgent situations who are triaged to facilitate extremely serious medical conditions like heart attack, bodies broken in car smash-ups, stabbings, shootings and strokes. After being seen by an RN, some people wait 8 hours to be seen by a physician even though they are uncomfortable.

A lot of problems are caused by 'bed back-up.' Our population is aging, elderly people often are hospitalized for a short term condition but remain in an 'active' hospital bed when they can't care for themselves at home as they had managed previously. Until arrangements can be made for suitable/acceptable assisted living accommodation a bed is blocked. Someone treated in Emergency needs that bed for recovery but they are stranded in ER and blocking service for someone in the waiting room needing treatment. Frustrating to all. One possible solution would be social workers and intake clerks working 24/7. Tres expensive!

As medical care and technology expands, all conditions seem to be assessed by seriousness. For those of us in life threatening illnesses, the line-up vanishes and we get all the newest, latest tests, procedures, Imagining etc. How do I know? I'm a cancer survivor from suspicion to tests to surgery to chemo to radiation to recovery program in six weeks. 2nd bout was even faster!

When DH had a painful bout of kidney stones, he had a horrid night in Emergency and a couple of twist and turns but the lithotripsy was booked within the week. Our system is slow for knee and hip replacement, cataracts; important, uncomfortable but not life threatening; seniors are furious and complaining. Funnily, if we could unclog rooms they would get faster care and we would all pay higher taxes for more surgical beds but seniors would complain even more loudly.

If you feel that medical care should be doled out to those who can afford to pay, you are likely happiest with the American system. Canadians who feel their condition warrants a major $$$$$$$, are free to use the international system. Bumrumguard Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand is world class, offers fantastic care...and is favored by celebrities.

[frugalgirl]

We are on our second temporarily work situation in Sweden. The first time we were here in 2003, we had two pre-school aged children. Children and pregnant women are given excellent and priority care here. We were assigned a primary medical doctor for each of us which was based on where we lived. For children, a nurse was available on call 24-hours a day via phone for questions and advice. Even as foreigners, we paid nothing for the children at the doctor and very little for us.

The biggest difference I saw/see between the systems regarding care is that in Sweden they treat with the least intervention first and slowly escalate from there. For example, a sinus infection is treated with saline nasal rinses first. No antibiotics are given for that unless it would persists beyond 2 weeks. For an eye infection I had, they started with an antiseptic then moved on to an antibiotic. It was a little frustrating not to get an "instant fix" to the problem but it is certainly helping to not create antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The people here are willing to wait it out and take their turn. It was hard for me to have an eye infection for a month and not get an antibiotic until the other less severe options were exhausted.

In 2011, we have not yet had to see a doctor. However, one of my American friends here had to have a scan of her adomen. I can't remember what type it was. She had the scan and immediately afterwards met with the doctor to discuss the results. The scan plus doctor visit cost the equivalent of $200 USD. (You have to live here for a full 12 months and pay taxes in Sweden to be fully covered by their system now although children may still be free.)

The bottom line difference between the US and Swedish medical care IMO (and many other areas) has a lot to do with cultural differences. In Sweden, the common good is more important than any individual need. In the US, "me first" is what matters most IMHO. Swedes would think it abhorrent that not everyone had the right to equivalent health care treatments.

[Mjenn]

Hejsan Frugalgirl,

I'm also in Sweden and pretty much agree with FG. The attitudes towards medicine are different here, which leads to different care. Pregnancy, for example, is cared for in a very hands off way because it is not considered an illness, but a natural condition. However, in my experience, the minute you veer slightly from the normal pregnancy curve, they really jump in with a no-costs-barred care.

They had some concerns durning my pregnancy and we ended up having an assortment of scans every week.

Also, as she said, antibiotics are used only if it is seen as a must, and this can be frustrating at times. This is because Swedes are cautious about antibiotic resistent bacteria - not because they are too cheap to pay for it.

My personal experiences, outside of pregnancy have been both pos and neg. Sometimes I feel like I need to be super dramatic to be taken seriously, where in the US I felt they always ordered too many tests for a tiny little thing.

I don't have a standby ticket - I think what Maat means is an open ended ticket - and I'm surprised these exist after 9/11. It's not like there is a run on tickets from Canada to Us in most cases anyways, so I don't get it.

When I had to go to the ER I was told over and over again by the staff that it was going to be a long wait. In the end it took me 3 hours to see a doctor, be x-rayed and meet with an orthopedist. I don't think it would be much better in the US.

I don't think Sweden has a perfect system - I think the US could have a system to be riveled if they combined a public option with private health care. I think if private insurance was really competing - they might be able to be awesome providers. But as it is now, not so much.

Also, Sweden does have private providers, but in a confusing state - they are also paid by the gov. So I can choose if I want a private doctor or a state doctor as my main provider - but the state still pays. (I have private).

As for the taxes - here is a simple breakdown of the tax structure here
Surviving In Sweden: Swedish taxes: Take my money – Please!

[rj.phila]

all i can say to the US citizens watching this thread is.....read the comments from the folks who actually HAVE experience in another countries' care system. these are real people. a pol on a bully pulpit will never ever ever in a million years echo these statements, and most will actually try to tell you the exact opposite.

asmom-UK system may not be "regarded well"; i found myself in a brit ER once. i was seen within 45 minutes. the care was excellent, attentive, and kind. my bill was around 13-15GBP. ive never been seen in a US ER in less than 2 hours, or paid less than $275.

the thought that we need to turn over our system of health care in the US even FURTHER to corporations is bat**** crazy to me. i really think people need to drop the overarching ideologies and just look at what works, and what doesnt, around the world. bottom line.

monkeymama-i respect your desire to hold some element of pride or patriotism about your own system, i would love to feel similarly....but stats dont see things in terms of fair and unfair, unfortunately....

[Mjenn]

Oh an as to MonkeyMama's question - in Sweden - in my area (yes it varies due to region I think) you are allowed 3 IVF tries if you have no children - and you meet the criterea (BMI below 30, viable eggs/sperm, and maybe something else, not sure) - at no cost to you. But there is a waiting list. If you do not meet the criterea, or are trying for more children, then you can, of course, have IVF, you just have to pay for it.

If you have a history of miscarriages or stillbirth, you would deal directly with an OB, and not the typiclal Certified Nurse Midwives that normally care for pregnant women. But by no means would they refuse treatment. I have a friend who had a stillbirth, then 2 miscarriages, she is now 10 weeks pregnant and under high-risk OB care, and she has 2 healthy little ones at home.

[tripods68]

I have an Aunt who live in Vancouver. According to her, she is very satisfied with her health care, very few waiting lines, and gets treated right a way. The best part of it, the care and services she received doesn't cost her a dime.

I recommend the movie to watch "SICKO" made by Michael Moore. An Excellent movie that describe variety of healtcare choices many parts of the world, including Canada, England, France etc.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Maat, what are your rebuttals to people living abroad and their opinions that healthcare is for everyone? Am I still crazy and misinformed? Or is it a different opinion that Healthcare is a basic right and can be respected as such?

Second, i've been treated in asia and in Canada and found it MUCH faster. The ER in both places are faster than in the US. In the US it takes a lot longer and is much more cumbersome. Don't get me wrong, if I live in the US i play by their rules and I will have health insurance and be willing to pay OOP. But I don't think it's fair nor do I think it's the most efficient system.

Also I do not believe people come here for routine medical care. I've been watching a lot of interviews and health insurance companies are starting to SHIP people to Singapore, Thailand, etc for surgeries like bypass, knee replacement because it's much cheaper and higher quality care. So how can the US be number one?

Monkeymama, the US has the highest infant mortality rate of industrialized counties because they do a lot of intervention. They try to save infants that are highly premature that in other countries they don't attempt. And prenatal care is a lot more exepensive in the US for those without insurance.

Interestingly in the US, WIC recently began putting formula away and trying to introduce women to breastfeeding. Before the formula companies had free samples on the counter and so women would formula feed babies instead of breastfeeding. My friend a lactation consultant said this made formula feeds to easy instead of breastfeeding. Which is cheaper in the long run and does have health benefits. But in the US it's the lowest rate of breastfeeding because we have a shorter maternity and because formula companies push free samples in the hospital.

[elessar78]

My stepfather is Swedish and has lived in the US for more than half of his 70 years. His take is that no system is perfect. He says it sucks that we have to pay so much here out of pocket for medical care but it is offset by less taxes. When Sweden wasn't such a popular destination for immigrants, their system was sustainable-now, not so much. People who haven't paid in are using it which has caused a lot of resentment among the usually tolerant Swedes.

In Sweden, major medical care isn't such a catastrophic financial event. In general, the Swedish system is more humane than the American HC system. His words, not mine.

[maat55]

[quote]

Originally Posted by LivingAlmostLarge

Maat, what are your rebuttals to people living abroad and their opinions that healthcare is for everyone? Am I still crazy and misinformed? Or is it a different opinion that Healthcare is a basic right and can be respected as such?

IMO, healthcare is a comodity/service no more a right than food or water. The idea that people from other countries are satified with their socialist systems does not sway me to think that socialism is a better system than the free market.

I happen to believe strongly that our healthcare system is the best in the world, our only problem is that it has been hijacked by government programs. Free market fundamentals are what promote innovation and efficiency. Medicare, Medicaid and group copay plans have tied the hands of the free market.

Constitutionally, healthcare is not a right in america. I believe the Constitution is our only defense from Totalitarianism. I have no problem with states experimenting in social plans, but not the federal government. We do not have the right to consume future generations prosperity in the name of healthcare or retirement. Again, it is not wise for an entity with a printing press to have so many financial obligations.

Also I do not believe people come here for routine medical care. I've been watching a lot of interviews and health insurance companies are starting to SHIP people to Singapore, Thailand, etc for surgeries like bypass, knee replacement because it's much cheaper and higher quality care. So how can the US be number one?

Actually, Asia has a more free market system for they who pay out of pocket. Even in america, those with money get very good care. I equate healthcare to any other comodity, the more money you have, the more house, healthcare etc. you get.


LivingAlmostLarge, I'm not knocking socialized healthcare, but in principle, it is a system based in redistribution. I do not believe in forced redistribution in any form. This is why I do not consider healthcare or any other comodity a right. My freedom to life, liberty and property are rights, which redistribution schemes infringe upon. This is why I resist any form of socialism concerning my individual issues or food, clothing, shelter, healthcare and education.

General Interest
Political theorists since the time of the ancient Greeks have argued in support of the existence of natural rights, meaning those rights that men possessed as a gift from nature (or God) prior to the formation of governments. It is generally held that those rights belong equally to all men at birth and cannot be taken away.

The concept of natural rights received one of its most forceful expositions in the writings of Englishman John Locke (1632-1704), who argued that man was originally born into a state of nature where he was rational, tolerant, and happy. In this original existence man was entitled to enjoy the rights of life, liberty and property.

However, not all men chose to live within the confines of the natural laws and presented threats to the liberties of the others. At this stage man entered into a social contract (compact) in which a state (government) was formed to guarantee the rights of the members of society.

Locke believed that the only reason for the existence of government was to preserve natural rights and, by extension, man’s happiness and security.

These ideas were eagerly accepted by many American colonists in the 18th century, an age when political philosophy was widely read and discussed. James Otis made an eloquent appeal to natural rights in his argument against the writs of assistance in 1761 and Thomas Jefferson offered a classic restatement in the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Nope but if you are a constitutionalist you should believe in freedom of speech and freedom of one's belief's and ideals. Thus having the idea that healthcare is a right should be protected. Did I say healthcare is a guarantee? Nope. Not done in this country. But can we believe it should be? Are other countries and people wrong? Nope, but you imply that it is. That people who believe it are idiots. Nevermind that the majority of people in industrialized countries believe it or there wouldn't be so much socialized medicine.

You like freedom of religion? Freedom to bear arms? Well I noticed in this country it's becoming more and and more intolerant in general. That if anyone has an ideal or belief opposite of someone else they are considered "ignorant and communist." And this cuts both ways with extreme liberals and conservatives.

I don't believe that the US has the best healthcare. I think that they have progressive healthcare for the cutting edge medicine. But preventative? Or routine medical care? Not by a long shot.

Nor do I believe that people who want to cut SS and Medicare have an answer for not having these safety nets in place. I want to know what people propose? How will it really work? And if it were so simple to cut these safety nets then why didn't they? Because the people who depend on it the most aren't the rich but the poor and middle class.

Besides the point, I wonder if we closed the loopholes for handing down wealth in trusts, etc, what sort of taxes would be raised? If the rich weren't allowed to put everything into trust and avoid paying taxes while handing down wealth?

I mean the very wealthy, not the upper middle class. People who can afford to gift say $12k from each grandparent annually to a grandchild as a tax shelter and tax planning? Or "gifting" grandchild with a company now to avoid taxes at $50k/each?

Are you in that category? I know I'm not. But the loopholes for the wealth is astounding. I read a blog where a woman gets a lot of money from her family and it's all tax free and they carefully plan all the "gift" so the IRS doesn't get the family money. Now will average joe get this same tax planning? I doubt it.

[elessar78]

maat, even in the most basic and primal form of government (tribal) and it's been studied by anthropologists is that redistribution of wealth is a primary function of a governing body. The differences occur only in whom the collected wealth of a group is redistributed to. Is it redistributed to a few (aristocracy) or the many (the populace).

"Medical care for those who can afford it" is just as valid an ideaology as "Medical care for all."

I think the ideal situation, as been mentioned, is the hybrid: Broadly available, high quality medical care that is inexpensive for everyone.

High quality care exists in the US. I think a vast majority have access to it, albeit cost becomes a barrier. I think I head the leading cause of bankruptcy filings is medical costs. No one in the free market benefits from people filing bankruptcy. Creditors don't get their money and the productivity of those that file, plummets. Not to mention, the indirect effect that sick people need care so family may have to leave the work force to care or redirect financial resources to care for loved ones.

I support healthcare reform not because I'm an idealist that ONLY believes that everyone should have access but I think it makes long-term financial sense. The current system is unsustainable. It's not just the lazy and unemployed who don't have access, many middle class workers are being priced out of medical care. We have an aging population that will need a tremendous amount of medical care-what happens when the system can't support their medical care? We let them get sick and die?

Sure, many have underfunded retirement accounts. So this is where it gets murky for me. Also, do we need to support those with self-inflicted medical conditions? Heart disease, obesity, diabetes,lung cancer?

For me, pragmatism trumps idealism. We need to maintain people's health because it's cheaper than curing them.

[Mjenn]

I struggle with the idea of a 'constitutionalist.' I don't think anyone here in this thread thinks the constitution is a bad thing, nor that their ideas are in contrast with the constitution. I think we are in danger here, of turning the constitution into something akin to the bible - the belief that there is only one interpretation and that is mine and that is correct.

Thankfully, the whole purpose of our government is to insure that the constitution remain a living, breathing document. That is why our forefathers gave us the ability to change it - that is why we have a supreme court, because it is not an easy thing to just 'decide' what is constitutional or not. There are many things I feel go against what is written in the constitution, and many things Maat thinks that go against the constitution that we are not in agreement on (for me I think the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment - and I don't think it's consitutional to hold people prisoner at guantnamo bay - for maat he finds social security and health care to be unconstituional) but that is why we have a system in place to help keep to the course of constitutionalism.


It is because of our constitution that our constitution is not set in stone.

I think it is impossible to know what the founding fathers would have thought about the giant corporations that have legal power akin to one citizen, but budgets the size of countries. Nor if they would be for or against health care or social security, because there was nothing like those systems at that time anywhere in the world. And they developed modern democracy, they needed to leave a few other things to other generations.

To claim states rights, that still gives me a bit of the shivers, because that was pretty much the same argument used to try to keep slavery in place. States rights.

I for one do hope that in our modern day society, food, water and health care should be basic rights. I don't want to enjoy my food, water and healthcare while watching my neighbors or even my neighbors neighbors starve to death in the streets. Even if they are lazy. I don't. I do want to live in a society that feels that it is it's duty to make sure that doesn't happen. That is why I place my vote towards the candidate that I feel best aligns with my ideals - and you with yours.

And having spent the last 10 years working with global industries around the world - private listed companies - I can tell you that the only thing they have going for them is that they do not have to be as transparent as our government. They are also shockingly poorly run, in most cases, the left hand has no clue what the right hand is doing, all they have to do is turn their projected profit. Not please customers, not make quality products, but turn that profit. You might think one has to do with the other, but you would be surprised.