Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Keepongoing]

I loved this documentary. I loved it when he took the sick people to Cuba to receive the health care they were unable to secure in the U.S. It was an excellent commentary on the "greed" of the HMO's. I don't know why we Americans are so passive in accepting things as they are. I guess it is the frog in the kettle story.

Honestly, the only way is to vote for people who have the smallest campaign donations; another words have not been bought by special interests.

[Juregen]

[jlb]

I'm not so sure why the average American is so resistant to National Healthcare. Canadians and Western Europeans (even Koreans) seem to take it for granted that it would be a good thing and a country would be crazy not to have it.

Maybe Americans have been hearing for too long about how bad of a thing it is from their politicians and they actually believe it.

[jaganath69]

While I thought it raised some interesting questions, the lack of objectivity was blinding. Cuba, state of the art health facility cum Potemkin Village was rolled out. Health care facilities outside Havana are dire. France, state-of-the-art National Health Care service, sure. Not mentioned, crippling tax rates, one of the lowest growth rates in Europe and crippling unemployment.

[Gopher]

[VanIslander]

[Gopher]

[Adventurer]

[Adventurer]

People need to understand that the US is not like other Western countries in terms of ideology. It has its own history. It can be interpreted in many ways.

The U.S. was formed by liberals in the old sense who chafed under the oppression of George III. Taxes were imposed on the people as well.
This left people with a strong distrust for government, a loathing for paying taxes for so many people. So many Americans want universal health care, maybe somewhat more than those who don't, but they don't want to raise taxes. That is illogical. You can't deal with a budget deficit, having health insurance for all without paying for it somehow.
Those who have universal health care pay taxes to have it. Many Americans feel it is oppressive to have them pay for someone else's health care and smacks of state control.

I think the US system needs to be reformed in spirit and in practice.
I would like to see more of a parliamentary system so the masses can exert more control and them to be encouraged to participate. If you go by the polls, more Americans want universal health care than those who don't want it. Why aren't they getting their way if a democracy is supposed to be present? It doesn't make sense. The system is not democratic enough. It is not government for the people and by the people. I am not saying Canada is... Canada is a satellite country with a lot of autonomy.

[butlerian]

[Gopher]

[twg]

[Unposter]

It seems to me that the problem with health care is the economics of health care.

It is simply two fold:

1) Insurance companies, despite a so-called free market, dictate what medical services you may have, taking out of the doctor's hands in all but the very rich who can opperate outside of the insurance system. Now, the insurance companies make these decisions based upon how they can maximize their profits.

If government stepped in, instead of an oligarchy of a few insurance executives deciding individual health care decsions, we could have a more democratic and hopefully more humanitarian way of looking at these decisions. We would also take out a large part of the profit motivive, reducing costs.

America still has the highest expenditure on health care of any nation (including taxes spent on health care).

2. Health care is an extremely elastic commodity. What wouldn't you pay for healthcare? At what point, would you just not recieve it? Since everyone gets sick and dies, it is market that will always be there and concommitant with the population, equally as large.

Now, people can just allow others to profit as they please off of other people's suffering or we can step in say that some profit is acceptable but their needs to be cost controlls to make health care available to all.

Actually, studies show that having a large population of people without health insurance is more expensive than just providing them health care as the uninsured wait until the problem is really great and then go to the emergency room where they cannot be denied services and then never pay. Since they both never pay and use emergency services which are much more expensive, their total costs are higher than if we as a society just had health insurance and let them see a doctor and be provided with preventive care.

But, the whole issue of health care has become so politicized and the AMA and the drug companies spend bundles on lobbying (money probably better spent on reducing costs) to protect their privledge and and mega profits - and you combine that with a sufficient number of people having health insurance 2/3 to 3/4 of the American population who though scared they might loose it, still have it, and have no time or energy to rock the boat.

A movie like Sicko will make people stop for a second and get angry that the narrow interests of well-financed lobbies are given priorities over those of the vast majority of Americans but without any real political outlet to voice that opinion it will soon die.

And, at best, maybe some reform on paper, will pass Congress helping a handfull of people and Congress will be happy and in two or five or ten years it will be another movie or politician talking about the issue again.

[mithridates]

[blaseblasphemener]

Canada has a lower REAL unemployment number than the U.S.

The U.S. drops people off it's doles after 18 months, so even if they are still unemployed, they are not classified as such.