Quote:
Originally Posted by jimjamuser
All this stated confusion naturally brings up the question of National Health Insurance. Is the system used by Canada, Australia, and all other 1st world countries (except the US) superior to the US's confused and inefficient system? Answer, yes they get better care at lower cost. Ask the Canadians why they are afraid to get sick while in the US.
|
Couldn't be more wrong. Their cost is slightly lower, but their tax rate is higher. The main cost savings is essentially "rationing" of healthcare both by denying certain services such as dialysis or ICU care in terminal cases and long waits for surgeries where the patient may die before any $$$ is spent. That may work in a society that is basically ethnically homogenous such as Sweden, but with the diverse population in the US someone will scream "discrimination", not to mention we have 10 times as many lawyers per capita to force that issue. And "better" care?????
That's the biggest misperception going. Why is it that Canadians who are financially able flock to the US for health care when they have a significant illness? Also, where do those who can afford it around the world come for quality health care---Boston, NY, or Luxembourg???? And don't even bother countering with those bogus WHO statistics on life expectancy---those numbers are all skewed by the different criteria we have for reporting infant mortality vs. the rest of the world. But if anyone wants to travel to Zimbabwe for their medical care, it's a free country, go for it.