As I seem to recall it, people were making morbid fun about the cost of IV bags in US even before Obama took office, but yeah, I think we can agree the system is different kind of messed up now.
Holy crap. So was there like some complications and they had to do surgery, or is this the cost for a perfectly normal delivery?
How the hell did the USA bugger this up? I pay £20 a week from my wages until I retire. That's it. Whenever I have to do something like go help my wife push a sprog out, we just pop over the Maternity Unit and lap up some Nitrous Oxcide.
No, the reason that Obamacare is controversial is that is forces you to pay into a for-profit private system. It should have been a medicare for all buy-in if anything.
We are all being scammed here.
Perfectly normal one night stay.
A little lower down in the same report (amounts are expressed in CAD):
Historically, that causes rising taxation, and when things like taxation get out of hand, revolution. We're not at that point yet. I have no idea what the chances are, they're not 0%, but there's still time to do something.
That looks like Obama Care was written by the insurance companies to me.
Very interesting, do you have data on Mortality, Remission and Cure rates per capita on a global level country country?
Many thanks for the details that helps answer that question, it took me this long to google up exactly when the Federal Health reform happened... 2010, is that right? What happened to people before 2010?"Being sick will not keep you from getting health coverage. An insurance company can’t turn you down or charge you more because of your condition."
What about pre-existing conditions?
As a result of the federal health reform law, new protections for children and adults with pre-existing conditions are available. Insurers are no longer permitted to deny coverage to children due t…www.cohealthinfo.com
I don't know, but maybe your government workers know better than the doctors and rest of us. My guess is that it is a statistic and nothing more.
I don't recall suggesting anyone knew better than anyone else. I'm genuinely interested if one way of doing it results on more people living longer - and as you say, if one country is providing notihng more than statistics we must assume all are - including the leading institutions the world over.
So... they just died if they got sick from a treatable illness? Or was there some other system that allowed them not to? Apologies for sounding ignorant but I honestly don't know because I don't come from there.
Well, it depends on who has the right to live longer. Killing people because there is no hope contrasted to saving people that either have money, influence, or can be cured according to a statistical algorithm. That seems like a form of genocide to me by killing the poor people, so the people who have means can live. Should this same standard apply to your "Queen"... probably, but the reality is no.
I'm not sure what track you are on here I might have lost you?
en.m.wikipedia.org
I would prefer the good 'ol days, prior to 2010. I was happy with my system (I - talking about myself - not anyone else). People have never been dying in the streets of America, and poor people have always had access to care. Obviously, good enough was not good enough.
That's mostly true, except in the EU and Canada, you don't have a copay, and the costs are substantially lower than they are in the US. Related: I'd also point out life expectancy is higher.
en.wikipedia.org
13 thousand homeless people die in the streets in US every year, and not of old age. Homeless life expectancy is almost 20 years lower than that of a homed person. And they're not all junkies either.
