Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's not like you have to pay the bill. Just fake your death or something.

Or get insurance.

Whatever floats yer boat.

Yeah, because that makes sense... And I'm sure loads of insurance companies would love to take on people with pre-existing conditions and ongoing care costs and pay for their treatment when they have put in no premiums.

After all we know insurance companies really care about people and do everything in their power to help them... Oh, wait...

The attitude of Americans to caring for one another just boggles the mind. It is a wonder your society hasn't exploded by now...

SilverMK2 wrote:Yeah, because that makes sense... And I'm sure loads of insurance companies would love to take on people with pre-existing conditions and ongoing care costs and pay for their treatment when they have put in no premiums.

After all we know insurance companies really care about people and do everything in their power to help them... Oh, wait...

The attitude of Americans to caring for one another just boggles the mind. It is a wonder your society hasn't exploded by now...

I do wonder sometimes...

You will find plenty of British people with the same sort of attitudes.

America is hardly exceptional.

Of course. However as a nation we have managed to institute a number of systems to make sure people are looked after with a reasonably small outlay by everyone paying make sure no one goes without basic care, housing, food, etc...

Look, you need to take a step back and realize different nations are different. We all get it, you think we are backwards because we charge people for healthcare. We think you are backwards because you put people in jail for saying mean things. Different nations are different.

I don't have an issue with paying for healthcare, but i take issue with the fact that we as society decided that money is more important then a human life, that it is better to let someone go untreated then footing the bil

youbedead wrote:I don't have an issue with paying for healthcare, but i take issue with the fact that we as society decided that money is more important then a human life, that it is better to let someone go untreated then footing the bil

Hospitals are obliged to treat you. They just have the ability to charge you for it later.

Bromsy wrote:

youbedead wrote:I don't have an issue with paying for healthcare, but i take issue with the fact that we as society decided that money is more important then a human life, that it is better to let someone go untreated then footing the bil

Hospitals are obliged to treat you. They just have the ability to charge you for it later.

No, they are obliged to provide emergency treatment, there is no obligation for a hospital to treat long term life threatening conditions

youbedead wrote:

Bromsy wrote:

youbedead wrote:I don't have an issue with paying for healthcare, but i take issue with the fact that we as society decided that money is more important then a human life, that it is better to let someone go untreated then footing the bil

Hospitals are obliged to treat you. They just have the ability to charge you for it later.

No, they are obliged to provide emergency treatment, there is no obligation for a hospital to treat long term life threatening conditions

Okay, if your argument is that any condition that may be life threatening in any span of time should be treated, I can't fault you. If you are broke, have no insurance, and have a rockin' case of Inflammatory Bowl Disease and areunwilling to take on crushing debt to stay alive, then yeah, it's gonna suck.

Bromsy wrote:Look, you need to take a step back and realize different nations are different. We all get it, you think we are backwards because we charge people for healthcare. We think you are backwards because you put people in jail for saying mean things. Different nations are different.

You're the only one judging people here.

Societies may differ, but people are all the same. Every person has the same basic needs. I don't understand why a society as a whole would be so against providing them as a last resort when something goes wrong. I guess it could just be the types of people from those societies that I have encountered, but the media is littered with examples from every level of your society.

Bromsy wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Bromsy wrote:

youbedead wrote:I don't have an issue with paying for healthcare, but i take issue with the fact that we as society decided that money is more important then a human life, that it is better to let someone go untreated then footing the bil

Hospitals are obliged to treat you. They just have the ability to charge you for it later.

No, they are obliged to provide emergency treatment, there is no obligation for a hospital to treat long term life threatening conditions

Okay, if your argument is that any condition that may be life threatening in any span of time should be treated, I can't fault you. If you are broke, have no insurance, and have a rockin' case of Inflammatory Bowl Disease and areunwilling to take on crushing debt to stay alive, then yeah, it's gonna suck.

Even if you are insured then your still likely to be refused treatment. The US has really good high end cancer treatment, the best in the world, however you are far more likely to die of cancer in the US if yor in the lower-middle or lower class. It is very common for insurance to cover long term life threatening conditions, for example very few companies cover chemo therapy, most will cover surgical removal however, but if you need treatment after surgery then your out of luck.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Bromsy wrote:Look, you need to take a step back and realize different nations are different. We all get it, you think we are backwards because we charge people for healthcare. We think you are backwards because you put people in jail for saying mean things. Different nations are different.

You're the only one judging people here.

Societies may differ, but people are all the same. Every person has the same basic needs. I don't understand why a society as a whole would be so against providing them as a last resort when something goes wrong. I guess it could just be the types of people from those societies that I have encountered, but the media is littered with examples from every level of your society.

Okay, so we are ignoring the fact that hospitals in America have to treat you to keep you alive - "Last resort"... but we are going to also claim that I am judging people? I would have to question your reading comprehension and memory on that score. Lets look at what I've written versus what you have.

=me]Well, yes, things cost money. They aren't going to pull the sutures and untie the tourniquets because your check bounced, but you will get a bill at some point.
It's not like you have to pay the bill. Just fake your death or something.

Or get insurance.

Whatever floats yer boat.

Look, you need to take a step back and realize different nations are different. We all get it, you think we are backwards because we charge people for healthcare. We think you are backwards because you put people in jail for saying mean things. Different nations are different.


Hospitals are obliged to treat you. They just have the ability to charge you for it later.


Okay, if your argument is that any condition that may be life threatening in any span of time should be treated, I can't fault you. If you are broke, have no insurance, and have a rockin' case of Inflammatory Bowl Disease and areunwilling to take on crushing debt to stay alive, then yeah, it's gonna suck.

That is every single word I have said in this thread, as opposed to fun nonjudgmental stuff like

SilverMK2 wrote:Have to say I really can't quite get the American outlook on life. To be frank, I am quite glad of that in many ways.
Yeah, because that makes sense... And I'm sure loads of insurance companies would love to take on people with pre-existing conditions and ongoing care costs and pay for their treatment when they have put in no premiums.

After all we know insurance companies really care about people and do everything in their power to help them... Oh, wait...

The attitude of Americans to caring for one another just boggles the mind. It is a wonder your society hasn't exploded by now...

I get it, you have this awesome sense of moral outrage... but please realize the nonsense you are typing.

Being unable to comprehend does not imply a judgement (though I admit that I am not a huge fan of insurance companies, they do go out of their way to ensure they pay for as little as possible). Though I will give you the first comment quoted - I am glad that my views are not those seemingly typical in the USA. Does not mean though that I am judging you or anyone else. I'm glad I have all my limbs, doesn't mean I judge those who do not.

The comment I was specifically referring to was you suggesting I think America is backwards, and you suggesting the UK is backwards for our seldom used hate speech laws.

I don't think the US is backwards for many of the ways it works, I just don't understand why it has chosen to work the way it does and ultimately I think it will have to change to avoid exploding into chaos. I'm not making any kind of judgement on how it works being right or wrong.

"Have to say I really can't quite get the American outlook on life. To be frank, I am quite glad of that in many ways. "

Does imply judgment. If that isn't the case, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Frankly, I am too tired to care at this point.

In my experience, Americans are fiercely independent. They don't want to have anything to do with anyone else. By which I mean, the concept of their tax dollars being spent on someone else's healthcare really gets up their nose. They don't see why they should have to pay for that persons healthcare.

Similarly with gun control, they feel they need to have guns to protect themselves because no one else can be trusted, and a peaceful society through education and effective law enforcement is impossible. They have an intense dislike of government interference, and believe everyone should be responsible for themselves.

Which has some merits, to be sure, but at the same time they often ignore the tangible benefits of a more 'socialist' (and I use the term in the loosest possible sense) society like Canada, the UK, Australia, or anywhere else in the developed world.

I mean, here in Australia we are one of the lowest taxed populations in the world, yet we have public healthcare, public transport, public schools, and an efficient method of distributing our tax dollars. I won't say there's no room for improvement, but if I get sick here I can go into the hospital and be treated, no matter the extent of the treatment, without paying another cent out of my pocket and at the same time I pay less taxes than someone in America.

I dunno, maybe we just spend less money on explosives with which to bomb brown people into democracy.

All of that Kaldor mentioned is really a load of nonsense. Unless you're listening to solely hardcore rightwingers, who make up a very tiny minority within the US I should note, that sort of intellectual vomit is definitely non-applicable to the US in general.

Fiercely independent? Sure. To the point of not wanting any tax dollars spent on people other than themselves? No. Wanting guns because they don't trust anyone but themselves? No.

Melissia wrote:All of that Kaldor mentioned is really a load of nonsense. Unless you're listening to solely hardcore rightwingers, who make up a very tiny minority within the US I should note, that sort of intellectual vomit is definitely non-applicable to the US in general.

Fiercely independent? Sure. To the point of not wanting any tax dollars spent on people other than themselves? No. Wanting guns because they don't trust anyone but themselves? No.

....Your response was much less inflammatory than mine, whilst still containing the gist of what I would have said. Big ups, and I need to stop drinking and go to bed.

The 'defence' budget of America is out of line with the spending by pretty much any other developed nation, which really skews the money available for everything else, given the generally low american tax rates.

Spend even a fraction of the money spent on defence on healthcare and the armed forces would hardly notice thedifference, while everyone else would get free (at point of use) healthcare

And I don't get why people are happy to pay fairly large health insurance premiums rather than possibly have a small tax increase (assiming they don't change defence spending ) and then no longer having to pay insurance.

Either way you are paying for the care of other people, just with insurance you are paying more and for a lot of conditions you will still have to pay at least some of your costs.

How dare you say that Americans pay low tax rates.

You'll offend the Republicans, who like a Limbo player, just wants to see how low they can go.

Melissia wrote:All of that Kaldor mentioned is really a load of nonsense. Unless you're listening to solely hardcore rightwingers, who make up a very tiny minority within the US I should note, that sort of intellectual vomit is definitely non-applicable to the US in general.

Fiercely independent? Sure. To the point of not wanting any tax dollars spent on people other than themselves? No. Wanting guns because they don't trust anyone but themselves? No.

Oh, please explain the anti-public healthcare point of view, and the need for the second amendment then.

Kaldor wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:American citizens dont believe that things out of our "paygrade" are beyond our scope.

What kind of idiot attempts to resolve a lethal situation when they lack the requisite experience or qualifications.

That's the equivalent of getting the cleaner at the hospital to do open heart surgery. Because hey, just because he's not qualified or experienced doesn't mean it's beyond his scope, right?

Again, you are assuming. Dont make an a55 of you and me.

I'd love politicians to have a limbo-off to decide policies

Mix American Gladiators with the political process and I think we'd have winner.

Spacemanvic wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:American citizens dont believe that things out of our "paygrade" are beyond our scope.

What kind of idiot attempts to resolve a lethal situation when they lack the requisite experience or qualifications.

That's the equivalent of getting the cleaner at the hospital to do open heart surgery. Because hey, just because he's not qualified or experienced doesn't mean it's beyond his scope, right?

Again, you are assuming. Dont make an a55 of you and me.

No, that's exactly what you said. Something that is out of a persons 'paygrade' isn't beyond their scope.

If something is beyond your paygrade, it means it is beyond your capabilities. It means you don't have the required skills, training and experience to handle it.

Kaldor wrote:Oh, please explain the anti-public healthcare point of view

There is a belief that the private sector can do better.

Sure it's an incorrect belief, but that's what a lot of objections to government expansions are based on.

Kaldor wrote:and the need for the second amendment then.

The second amendment's historical reason for existing had nothing to do with not trusting other people.

It had more basis in not trusting authority in general, the British Crown in specific.

Who, as we all know, are not really people.

Kaldor wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:American citizens dont believe that things out of our "paygrade" are beyond our scope.

What kind of idiot attempts to resolve a lethal situation when they lack the requisite experience or qualifications.

That's the equivalent of getting the cleaner at the hospital to do open heart surgery. Because hey, just because he's not qualified or experienced doesn't mean it's beyond his scope, right?

Again, you are assuming. Dont make an a55 of you and me.

No, that's exactly what you said. Something that is out of a persons 'paygrade' isn't beyond their scope.

If something is beyond your paygrade, it means it is beyond your capabilities. It means you don't have the required skills, training and experience to handle it.

To be fair, you are using fairly generalized terms in a very specific manner without quotes or any other qualifiers.

Kaldor wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:American citizens dont believe that things out of our "paygrade" are beyond our scope.

What kind of idiot attempts to resolve a lethal situation when they lack the requisite experience or qualifications.

That's the equivalent of getting the cleaner at the hospital to do open heart surgery. Because hey, just because he's not qualified or experienced doesn't mean it's beyond his scope, right?

Again, you are assuming. Dont make an a55 of you and me.

No, that's exactly what you said. Something that is out of a persons 'paygrade' isn't beyond their scope.

If something is beyond your paygrade, it means it is beyond your capabilities. It means you don't have the required skills, training and experience to handle it.

You dont do alot of things for yourself, do you?

How dare you speak that way about Queenie!


This is to Mel - on my phone and it is a bit slow...

Kaldor:

I have an active adult life I have to tend to. It's almost 7AM here, and I have a ton of work to do. When Im done though, think Ill hit the gun range. Im bringing some reactive targets out today, should be fun