State of the healthcare system in America: Let's discuss why it's failing

mistyjackal842 said:Isn't it just obvious that the healthcare system in Canada is better than ours? This guy wasn't even born in Canada. He spent a huge chunk of his life living here in the States and was covered by insurance, so... I guess he actually has some ground to stand on when making that comparison. Around here, it feels like hospital equipment is constantly breaking down. And even if you have supplemental insurance that you pay for out of your own pocket, if a machine is busted and they have no clue when it’ll be fixed, you’re stuck paying for a private scan yourself. I know about how Medicare handles cost reimbursements, but from what I've heard, even at places like Medikol, if you try to go in with a referral for an MRI, you could be waiting months—even if you're paying for that extra coverage. But, if you just pay for the full exam upfront without a referral, you can sometimes get it done within the same week. I haven't had to deal with that personally, but I've heard it from people who've booked appointments at Medikol. I suspect the same probably goes for other private clinics that take Medicare.

Look, there is a perfectly logical explanation for this. Here is the simplest way to look at it—and honestly, this applies to pretty much any diagnostic test or surgical procedure.

Let’s say a specific surgery or scan costs $33 (I'm making up this number just to make the math easy). If the government were to cover five of those procedures a day, it would cost the state $167. If they covered ten, it would cost 1000, and so on...
If the budget for this year is, let's say, 10 $0.00, that means they can only afford to cover 100 total procedures because that is all the money there is. Those 100 slots have to be spread out over 12 months, which works out to about 8 procedures a month.

Even if the facilities actually have the capacity to handle 20 procedures a day, they can't do it—because there isn't anyone to pick up the tab. It's that simple. It’s pure economics. At the end of the day, it always comes down to the money.

I mean, I’m pretty sure Canada allocates way more funding to healthcare than we do here. Even Anderson Cooper pointed out on his show how much more money is poured into the healthcare system in Austria compared to our situation. And honestly, I haven't heard of any GP just handing out referrals for no reason. In fact, it feels like it's actually much more common for them to deny you a referral, which basically forces you to pay out of pocket for a private visit. A few years back, I had this minor issue that my GP just couldn't sort out. He wouldn't give me a referral even though I practically begged him. I ended up handling it myself—my dad helped me out and took me to see a specialist he knows, and everything was resolved in just a few minutes. That specialist actually told me it was a good thing I came in when I did. What was I supposed to do? Just stay home and suffer because my doctor refused to give me a referral? Maybe if I had gone back there several times over the next two weeks, he might have finally felt merciful enough to give it to me. It was just an older GP covering shifts, probably close to retirement, so I doubt Medicare would have even cared if he had just given me the referral. For what it's worth, I hadn't even asked for a single referral in the five years leading up to that.

Jacob Fox6 said:Honestly, I’ve been saying this whole time—the healthcare system is broken.👍

I think there might be a little misunderstanding here. 🙂

I totally agree with you. I was just trying to distance myself from all the political stuff... personally, I don't care if we're talking communism or capitalism, the reality for me is that things just aren't working right now. From my perspective, all I want is to be able to see a doctor when I need to without having a nervous breakdown or emptying my bank account. Since everyone is so fed up with our healthcare, I'm definitely leaning towards being angry and calling people out.

That comment from Milinovic about cutting supplemental insurance for people on unemployment is just insane to me. If someone is unemployed, should they immediately be cast aside and treated like trash? His excuse was, "as a husband, I make enough to pay for my wife's supplemental insurance"... man, that statement still makes my blood boil...

I don't even know where to start arguing with that... I won't even try because my blood pressure would probably hit 190 thanks to my social conscience (unfortunately).

The guy is just an idiot... only a complete fool could say something like that. And that brings me back to my point—we’re stopping being a socially conscious nation. When I say "social" (looks like we had a misunderstanding there😉), I don't mean political leanings, I mean a specific discipline within medicine that exists on paper even though its actual practice is super questionable. When a pillar of capitalism—the US—works specifically to change the status quo from non-social medicine, I have to ask: "Who does Milinovic think he is to have an opinion on this?"

It sounds super pessimistic, I know, but honestly, it feels like these politicians today—regardless of which party they belong to—just don't have the power to change a single thing anymore... It’s not even just about the healthcare system at this point, it’s about basic survival, like how since September the government hasn't even had the funds to cover pensions because they emptied out the pension funds (thank God🙄) in a way that wouldn't fly in any civilized nation. In Germany, I know for a fact that anyone can choose at any time whether they want their entire life savings to go into a pension fund, yet our seniors are sitting there wondering if they'll even see a dime despite working hard and paying their taxes their whole lives...

The US has been completely robbed. And then you have them in Congress messing around with laws to statute-limit those infamous old corporate takeovers... It's pure idiocy and a blatant attempt (which, sadly, looks like it might actually work) to make sure the "important people" never have to answer to the law. Which leads me straight into the next mess, which is that the ruling party or coalition basically gets to hand-pick the constitutional judges—the political interference in the Constitution and our democracy is as obvious as day, and it's definitely not how things work in most other countries in the European Union. One massive problem just keeps dragging another one behind it... Without a totally independent judiciary, you just can't have a true nation governed by law in America, and that's just a fact.

So, back to the healthcare stuff. We're dealing with an overleveraged State, a State where the Secretary of the Treasury is practically rubbing his hands together while we pile on more debt through bonds in America, a State without a real industrial base, and without that, there's no money flowing into the treasury because while he was busy pushing "small business growth," they were suspiciously selling off or gutting major factories... basically, the State has zero income coming in, so the only solution our politicians see is taking on even more debt just to "patch the holes" temporarily. And then you throw healthcare into this mix, which is this massive machine involving private insurance, public coverage, a mountain of employees (and nobody can even fire doctors because there's already such a shortage), and huge pharmaceutical companies... and now... who is actually listening to what the people need regarding healthcare when we can barely afford basic survival and pensions? Personally, I don't think things are going to move in a positive direction anytime soon (sadly...) because health versus the healthcare system is what defines the well-being of any nation...

Sometimes I really wonder why I even bother stressing over this stuff when nothing ever seems to get better, and honestly, it feels worse than ever. But unfortunately for me, since I'm actually a medical student and I have a pretty clear picture of what my future career is going to look like, I can't just look the other way when it comes to social issues. I still believe in humanity, but I really wish it wasn't just expressed through the kindness of individual doctors (again—sadly—just individuals) but through the entire system itself... though I guess that's just my little utopia...

Once you graduate and get swallowed up by the machine, that utopia disappears pretty fast—though maybe you'll be the exception to the rule.

A quick thought on this whole transition toward socialized healthcare here in the States.
Just imagine if, as a nation, we had spent twenty years operating under a purely private healthcare model instead of a social one. Instead of dumping, say, $30 billion annually into the system, we only allocated what was strictly necessary to maintain basic functions—maybe just a billion or whatever the actual math dictates. We're talking about potentially saving hundreds of billions over two decades (adjust the numbers for accuracy, but you get the point).

Now, if we took those massive savings, pumped them directly into entrepreneurship, boosted production, and skyrocketed our GDP, we could eventually become a nation running at a massive surplus. If, after twenty years of dominance, we decided to pivot back to a socialized healthcare model, maybe we could actually pull it off? But there's a catch—that "success" would have been paid for with countless lives lost during those twenty years. The US did it—well, if we hadn't pushed for socialized healthcare from the start, who knows what kind of global power we'd be today? Maybe we wouldn't even be in the top five.

mistyjackal842 said:I mean, I’m pretty sure Canada allocates way more funding to healthcare than we do here. Even Anderson Cooper pointed out on his show how much more money is poured into the healthcare system in Austria compared to our situation. And honestly, I haven't heard of any GP just handing out referrals for no reason. In fact, it feels like it's actually much more common for them to deny you a referral, which basically forces you to pay out of pocket for a private visit. A few years back, I had this minor issue that my GP just couldn't sort out. He wouldn't give me a referral even though I practically begged him. I ended up handling it myself—my dad helped me out and took me to see a specialist he knows, and everything was resolved in just a few minutes. That specialist actually told me it was a good thing I came in when I did. What was I supposed to do? Just stay home and suffer because my doctor refused to give me a referral? Maybe if I had gone back there several times over the next two weeks, he might have finally felt merciful enough to give it to me. It was just an older GP covering shifts, probably close to retirement, so I doubt Medicare would have even cared if he had just given me the referral. For what it's worth, I hadn't even asked for a single referral in the five years leading up to that.

Believe me, primary care doctors—and look, I don't want to generalize, but at least the ones I deal with—they do hand out referrals, but it’s rarely for someone like you or anyone in your age group facing a potential issue. No, they're focused on the elderly patients whose conditions are already set in stone, people for whom even a trip to the hospital won't change their ultimate outcome, regardless of how much it might help someone younger like you.

The reason? It’s simple: they don't want the liability of an elderly patient passing away without having "sent them in," even though any sane person knows that at a certain point, medical intervention won't slow down the inevitable. (And let's be honest, pressure from the family plays a massive role here, too). It’s much easier to push a referral through for a younger person who isn't going to die in the next few years than it is to scramble for someone who could pass away in hours—even if, at 87 years old, death is just a natural part of life....

Believe me, we’ve been right there in that exact situation. My grandma was quite elderly and wasn't doing well. She passed away at home, and her primary care physician didn't just refuse to write referrals, as you put it. No, she provided them whenever they were actually needed and was always very fair. I mean, what should we be denying to all our seniors? They need regular checkups too, like monitoring their blood work. One time, my grandma even had to get a transfusion at a day hospital because she was dealing with severe anemia—back then, we didn't even know she had cancer yet. After that, she stayed in the hospital for a little while until they could confirm the final diagnosis. The transfusion didn't do wonders for her, but really, why deny her that care just because her illness was terminal? I truly believe we have to support the elderly. You can't just say, "Oh, let them die, they're old anyway, and they're costing the healthcare system too much." My grandma worked for thirty years as a professor, so... I guess you could say she earned the right to receive medical help. Grandpa also passed away at home; he was sick, and I doubt he cost the healthcare system much at all. He worked his entire life, too.

mistyjackal842 said:Believe me, we’ve been right there in that exact situation. My grandma was quite elderly and wasn't doing well. She passed away at home, and her primary care physician didn't just refuse to write referrals, as you put it. No, she provided them whenever they were actually needed and was always very fair. I mean, what should we be denying to all our seniors? They need regular checkups too, like monitoring their blood work. One time, my grandma even had to get a transfusion at a day hospital because she was dealing with severe anemia—back then, we didn't even know she had cancer yet. After that, she stayed in the hospital for a little while until they could confirm the final diagnosis. The transfusion didn't do wonders for her, but really, why deny her that care just because her illness was terminal? I truly believe we have to support the elderly. You can't just say, "Oh, let them die, they're old anyway, and they're costing the healthcare system too much." My grandma worked for thirty years as a professor, so... I guess you could say she earned the right to receive medical help. Grandpa also passed away at home; he was sick, and I doubt he cost the healthcare system much at all. He worked his entire life, too.

I guess I'll just let things be interpreted however they're going to be interpreted.
The more we beat our heads against this wall, the messier this whole situation gets.
Look, regarding your grandmother—it’s already established she had cancer, and it's known she suffered from frequent anemia as a result. That was all determined at the hospital, where they concluded she wasn't a candidate for surgery, radiation, or chemo anymore.
So what's left? Checking blood counts and providing a transfusion when levels drop? Fine, I agree with that—but not in a major hospital setting. That kind of thing should be handled by a primary care physician. But let's be real: those doctors aren't even fighting for a patient-centered system anymore. Instead, they're pushing for a system where they do less actual medicine and more administrative paperwork for the exact same paycheck—because, honestly, being an administrator is a hell of a lot easier than being a doctor.

Here is my inevitable take on this whole mess.

Look, there are countless grandmothers out there facing the exact same situation you are. We are pouring massive amounts of money into keeping people afloat for just a few months, and then—get this—that same money isn't there when someone younger (and I’m talking about folks in their late 60s or even younger) suddenly needs medical care after a lifetime of staying healthy. It’s a cycle, isn't it?

mistyjackal842 said:Believe me, we’ve been right there in that exact situation. My grandma was quite elderly and wasn't doing well. She passed away at home, and her primary care physician didn't just refuse to write referrals, as you put it. No, she provided them whenever they were actually needed and was always very fair. I mean, what should we be denying to all our seniors? They need regular checkups too, like monitoring their blood work. One time, my grandma even had to get a transfusion at a day hospital because she was dealing with severe anemia—back then, we didn't even know she had cancer yet. After that, she stayed in the hospital for a little while until they could confirm the final diagnosis. The transfusion didn't do wonders for her, but really, why deny her that care just because her illness was terminal? I truly believe we have to support the elderly. You can't just say, "Oh, let them die, they're old anyway, and they're costing the healthcare system too much." My grandma worked for thirty years as a professor, so... I guess you could say she earned the right to receive medical help. Grandpa also passed away at home; he was sick, and I doubt he cost the healthcare system much at all. He worked his entire life, too.

That isn't even the right way to frame it. It’s easy to sit here and play the saint—saying "Oh, I'd give everyone equal treatment"—but let's be real: you can only make those kinds of calls if you're swimming in cash.

Let me flip the script and ask you this: If you were the one making the call, who are you helping? Are you pouring resources into an 87-year-old grandmother battling terminal cancer with only months left to live, or are you helping a 50-year-old who *might* have a heart attack in a few days?
I'm not saying these are the exact scenarios we face every single day, but in my opinion—and this is where it gets ugly—we far too often find ourselves forced into these impossible choices. And when we are, what do we actually choose?

I mentioned she received a transfusion at the day hospital, and that’s exactly what happened. She spent some more time at home after that, but as her condition started to decline, she was admitted to the hospital to get a proper diagnosis. Up until then, she had been relatively healthy and lived quite a long life. After they ran all the tests at the hospital, they actually sent her home, even though she couldn't really move around. Given her age, she didn't undergo any intense chemotherapy. She passed away at home. I honestly don't see why this is such an issue for you. For what it's worth, she worked for over 30 years and paid her share into Medicare.

I really don't see why I should have to justify myself to you. It seems like you think you know everything and that you're always right. I just don't understand why you feel the need to pick apart my every word and take things completely out of context.

And I'm not even sure what you're talking about here. Of course everyone deserves help, regardless of their diagnosis. That comparison you made just doesn't make sense. Why on earth should we be choosing who gets help and who doesn't? Do you honestly believe that kind of selection is humane?

@ mistyjackal842

Look, let's just drop this—there's no point in arguing when you clearly don't understand how the system actually functions from the inside.
I’m not looking for a fight, really, and hey, you’re more than welcome to hold onto your idealistic little viewpoints if that makes you feel better; the only issue is that they just don't square with reality.

What exactly makes these views "idealistic"? Honestly, I don't see it. Everything I wrote was based on reality. It seems like people find it controversial that she spent a few days at the hospital getting tests and scans done. But she was there because they needed to figure out what was actually wrong with her. They didn't have a diagnosis yet. I mean, you have to establish a diagnosis first, regardless of how old someone is, right? Only then can you decide who can be helped with certain treatments and who can't. We didn't walk in with any unrealistic expectations once we finally got the diagnosis. And we weren't expecting anything extraordinary from the healthcare system, either. In a situation like this, things would have played out exactly the same way in any other developed country.

mistyjackal842 said:I mentioned she received a transfusion at the day hospital, and that’s exactly what happened. She spent some more time at home after that, but as her condition started to decline, she was admitted to the hospital to get a proper diagnosis. Up until then, she had been relatively healthy and lived quite a long life. After they ran all the tests at the hospital, they actually sent her home, even though she couldn't really move around. Given her age, she didn't undergo any intense chemotherapy. She passed away at home. I honestly don't see why this is such an issue for you. For what it's worth, she worked for over 30 years and paid her share into Medicare.

I really don't see why I should have to justify myself to you. It seems like you think you know everything and that you're always right. I just don't understand why you feel the need to pick apart my every word and take things completely out of context.

And I'm not even sure what you're talking about here. Of course everyone deserves help, regardless of their diagnosis. That comparison you made just doesn't make sense. Why on earth should we be choosing who gets help and who doesn't? Do you honestly believe that kind of selection is humane?

YES, CHOOSING WHO GETS HELP IS HUMANE. Is it humane to let someone with ruptured appendixes die because they couldn't get surgery because a 90-year-old with an incurable disease occupied the operating room or the bed?
Is it humane when hearts fail because someone was busy shuttling an elderly person back and forth from the ER to the hospital, leaving no ambulances available for someone's son, grandson, or great-grandson?

Here in America, because there is zero trust in the system, the relatives of the elderly act in a way that drives up the cost of care, making it impossible for other patients. They clog up the system, and no one has the decency to tell them to moderate their demands.
While they are busy making unrealistic demands of the staff, there isn't enough time or resources left to help people in acute crisis.
That is our culture: "Give me everything, and let everyone else rot."
And believe me, when you visit these seniors at home, they are often neglected and stripped of basic human rights. Yet, once they reach a hospital or a doctor, their families treat them like they descended from heaven. Meanwhile, the poor grandparents aren't even aware that their presence only serves to soothe their relatives' guilty consciences, while a young life slips away because they are stuck in the system.
There is no need to criticize me for thinking this way. This is a lesson learned through experience. My own mother passed away at 88, and I knew there wasn't any other way. It was far more important to provide her with care while it still made sense to do so.

We could also talk about the VIP suites and luxury rooms where bodies—more or less warmed up—lie at someone else's expense, sometimes with a little extra paid out of private pockets.
Fortunately, you can't cheat death, even if God is your father.

Kate Collins67 said:That isn't even the right way to frame it. It’s easy to sit here and play the saint—saying "Oh, I'd give everyone equal treatment"—but let's be real: you can only make those kinds of calls if you're swimming in cash.

Let me flip the script and ask you this: If you were the one making the call, who are you helping? Are you pouring resources into an 87-year-old grandmother battling terminal cancer with only months left to live, or are you helping a 50-year-old who *might* have a heart attack in a few days?
I'm not saying these are the exact scenarios we face every single day, but in my opinion—and this is where it gets ugly—we far too often find ourselves forced into these impossible choices. And when we are, what do we actually choose?

Both—because they both have a right to healthcare. But let's be real... that's just a nice thought on paper.

ruggedscout91 said:YES, CHOOSING WHO GETS HELP IS HUMANE. Is it humane to let someone with ruptured appendixes die because they couldn't get surgery because a 90-year-old with an incurable disease occupied the operating room or the bed?
Is it humane when hearts fail because someone was busy shuttling an elderly person back and forth from the ER to the hospital, leaving no ambulances available for someone's son, grandson, or great-grandson?

Here in America, because there is zero trust in the system, the relatives of the elderly act in a way that drives up the cost of care, making it impossible for other patients. They clog up the system, and no one has the decency to tell them to moderate their demands.
While they are busy making unrealistic demands of the staff, there isn't enough time or resources left to help people in acute crisis.
That is our culture: "Give me everything, and let everyone else rot."
And believe me, when you visit these seniors at home, they are often neglected and stripped of basic human rights. Yet, once they reach a hospital or a doctor, their families treat them like they descended from heaven. Meanwhile, the poor grandparents aren't even aware that their presence only serves to soothe their relatives' guilty consciences, while a young life slips away because they are stuck in the system.
There is no need to criticize me for thinking this way. This is a lesson learned through experience. My own mother passed away at 88, and I knew there wasn't any other way. It was far more important to provide her with care while it still made sense to do so.

We could also talk about the VIP suites and luxury rooms where bodies—more or less warmed up—lie at someone else's expense, sometimes with a little extra paid out of private pockets.
Fortunately, you can't cheat death, even if God is your father.

Thanks.
If I had kept pushing this point harder, people probably would've still taken it the wrong way—but I’m signing off on this, and honestly, I try to explain this logic to everyone, whether it's here on this forum or in my actual life.

mistyjackal842 said:So, why isn't the care in Canada considered worse than it is here in the States? I mean, I haven't heard people complaining much about it. I actually had the chance to chat with an American who lived and worked in Canada for many years. I didn't even prompt him; he just started telling me how top-tier their healthcare services really are. He was in a serious car accident once, and he told me that the level of quality care he received there after the crash... well, I guess he wouldn't have seen anything like that back home in the US.

Honestly, Canada feels like a total paradise compared to the US. It all really comes down to "you get what you pay for," which is the last thing you want when it comes to medical care, and it honestly just goes against everything medicine should be. To me, the real issue is that people treat medicine and healthcare like they're the exact same thing, even though they’re closely linked but totally different concepts. At the end of the day, the problem is that the healthcare system is driven by politics rather than actual medicine...

Canada has such a high standard of living and income levels, too. I can personally vouch for that since I've been there myself, and seeing how things work over there is basically pure science fiction for us here, unfortunately...😢

mistyjackal842 said:I mentioned she received a transfusion at the day hospital, and that’s exactly what happened. She spent some more time at home after that, but as her condition started to decline, she was admitted to the hospital to get a proper diagnosis. Up until then, she had been relatively healthy and lived quite a long life. After they ran all the tests at the hospital, they actually sent her home, even though she couldn't really move around. Given her age, she didn't undergo any intense chemotherapy. She passed away at home. I honestly don't see why this is such an issue for you. For what it's worth, she worked for over 30 years and paid her share into Medicare.

I really don't see why I should have to justify myself to you. It seems like you think you know everything and that you're always right. I just don't understand why you feel the need to pick apart my every word and take things completely out of context.

And I'm not even sure what you're talking about here. Of course everyone deserves help, regardless of their diagnosis. That comparison you made just doesn't make sense. Why on earth should we be choosing who gets help and who doesn't? Do you honestly believe that kind of selection is humane?

Totally agree.

And you just gave the perfect example of exactly what I've been saying... All these people—your grandma, current retirees, folks out of work—they've all been paying into the system, so where is that money now when they need the healthcare they earned??? That’s my whole point: if that money wasn't being stolen, there would be plenty for everyone, but instead, it turns out the very people who spent their entire lives paying for healthcare are left to fend for themselves while others are out driving luxury cars with their cash...

ruggedscout91 said:YES, CHOOSING WHO GETS HELP IS HUMANE. Is it humane to let someone with ruptured appendixes die because they couldn't get surgery because a 90-year-old with an incurable disease occupied the operating room or the bed?
Is it humane when hearts fail because someone was busy shuttling an elderly person back and forth from the ER to the hospital, leaving no ambulances available for someone's son, grandson, or great-grandson?

Here in America, because there is zero trust in the system, the relatives of the elderly act in a way that drives up the cost of care, making it impossible for other patients. They clog up the system, and no one has the decency to tell them to moderate their demands.
While they are busy making unrealistic demands of the staff, there isn't enough time or resources left to help people in acute crisis.
That is our culture: "Give me everything, and let everyone else rot."
And believe me, when you visit these seniors at home, they are often neglected and stripped of basic human rights. Yet, once they reach a hospital or a doctor, their families treat them like they descended from heaven. Meanwhile, the poor grandparents aren't even aware that their presence only serves to soothe their relatives' guilty consciences, while a young life slips away because they are stuck in the system.
There is no need to criticize me for thinking this way. This is a lesson learned through experience. My own mother passed away at 88, and I knew there wasn't any other way. It was far more important to provide her with care while it still made sense to do so.

We could also talk about the VIP suites and luxury rooms where bodies—more or less warmed up—lie at someone else's expense, sometimes with a little extra paid out of private pockets.
Fortunately, you can't cheat death, even if God is your father.

My God, I honestly can't wrap my head around how anyone—including you—could actually think like that...

What you just said goes completely against the Hippocratic Oath, the entire foundation of medicine, and basic human decency. And let me tell you, I'm not even speaking as a layperson here...

There are always specific criteria used for selection in every medical situation. Like... if you're waiting on a bone marrow transplant, nobody is asking if you're a smoker or not, you just get the transplant. The right to life isn't some individual choice made based on someone's personal opinion, and honestly, thank God you aren't the one making those calls, because you'd clearly just be treating teenagers while personally organizing funerals or tossing everyone else into the first available grave... it's just shameful. Everyone gets treated without exception, and then doctors step in more aggressively depending on how urgent the situation is...

Kate Collins67 said:Believe me, primary care doctors—and look, I don't want to generalize, but at least the ones I deal with—they do hand out referrals, but it’s rarely for someone like you or anyone in your age group facing a potential issue. No, they're focused on the elderly patients whose conditions are already set in stone, people for whom even a trip to the hospital won't change their ultimate outcome, regardless of how much it might help someone younger like you.

The reason? It’s simple: they don't want the liability of an elderly patient passing away without having "sent them in," even though any sane person knows that at a certain point, medical intervention won't slow down the inevitable. (And let's be honest, pressure from the family plays a massive role here, too). It’s much easier to push a referral through for a younger person who isn't going to die in the next few years than it is to scramble for someone who could pass away in hours—even if, at 87 years old, death is just a natural part of life....

Of course they're issuing referrals for follow-ups or adjusting meds, since that's way more cost-effective than sending someone straight to the hospital. And honestly, what else are they supposed to do, just let seniors suffer through pain at home? You're really overthinking this one because I doubt anyone younger is actually being denied care based on these rules—that sounds like a bit of a stretch if you ask me—plus, most of those older folks are actually paying for their own supplemental insurance anyway...

Kate Collins67 said:Once you graduate and get swallowed up by the machine, that utopia disappears pretty fast—though maybe you'll be the exception to the rule.

A quick thought on this whole transition toward socialized healthcare here in the States.
Just imagine if, as a nation, we had spent twenty years operating under a purely private healthcare model instead of a social one. Instead of dumping, say, $30 billion annually into the system, we only allocated what was strictly necessary to maintain basic functions—maybe just a billion or whatever the actual math dictates. We're talking about potentially saving hundreds of billions over two decades (adjust the numbers for accuracy, but you get the point).

Now, if we took those massive savings, pumped them directly into entrepreneurship, boosted production, and skyrocketed our GDP, we could eventually become a nation running at a massive surplus. If, after twenty years of dominance, we decided to pivot back to a socialized healthcare model, maybe we could actually pull it off? But there's a catch—that "success" would have been paid for with countless lives lost during those twenty years. The US did it—well, if we hadn't pushed for socialized healthcare from the start, who knows what kind of global power we'd be today? Maybe we wouldn't even be in the top five.

I won't be an exception, because I know plenty of people working in hospitals who are incredibly dedicated, decent doctors...

Your theory doesn't really hold water for two main reasons...

1. It’s pretty obvious you haven't quite grasped how macroeconomics works, especially when you start talking about "small and medium-sized businesses."
If you're interested, feel free to go study the economic foundation of the various countries in the European Union...

2. Because the US chose to roll out healthcare reform right in the middle of one of its massive crises and recessions that nearly leveled the playing field. Plus, let me remind you again about the economy—the US economy basically runs on defense spending... that's where the money for everything else is pulled from. When the banking sector and Wall Street collapsed—which was basically just a reality check showing that Americans were living entirely on credit—there was absolutely no money left, which is the exact opposite of what you're claiming. Despite that, the healthcare reform started anyway, and the "domino effect" was totally predictable. Money in America and money in Europe are two completely different beasts. Europe has a solid base—for instance, Germany has a manufacturing output comparable to France and the United Kingdom combined, and that isn't driven by "small businesses," but by heavy industry, agriculture, vocational training, and cutting out corruption and cronyism at the root. Naturally, that means there's money for everything... naturally, someone in Germany can live better on welfare than someone in a place like Ohio can on a paycheck... and naturally, there's money for healthcare!

Politics and healthcare don't work like simple addition; you need to understand things like "integrals"—basically, math and logic aren't really working in your favor here... it's a complex system (which is why I keep stressing the economy, because without it, nothing exists, not even healthcare). Healthcare is just one variable in a much larger function, and for it to work, politics has to be sound—starting with the individuals, the party agendas, the core logic, and the economic stability... I'll borrow a line from Shakespeare—"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark"...

Jacob Fox6 said:Honestly, Canada feels like a total paradise compared to the US. It all really comes down to "you get what you pay for," which is the last thing you want when it comes to medical care, and it honestly just goes against everything medicine should be. To me, the real issue is that people treat medicine and healthcare like they're the exact same thing, even though they’re closely linked but totally different concepts. At the end of the day, the problem is that the healthcare system is driven by politics rather than actual medicine...

Canada has such a high standard of living and income levels, too. I can personally vouch for that since I've been there myself, and seeing how things work over there is basically pure science fiction for us here, unfortunately...😢

I agree.
However, no one here has mentioned individual responsibility for one's own health. In many developed nations, including various countries in the European Union, patients are encouraged to maintain their health and adjust their insurance premiums accordingly through different providers. This way, those struggling with alcoholism, drug addiction, or other dependencies end up costing the system significantly more.

Why should anyone be held responsible for someone else’s alcoholic liver, smoker's lungs, or addiction-related illnesses like diabetes or cirrhosis? Why should we show solidarity with immorality and substance abuse? These individuals gain security knowing someone will bail them out simply because they are human beings. As for being irresponsible human beings? No one cares.

Here in the US, they take it even further; funds are often raised through various charitable drives to pay for transplants in places like Italy or elsewhere for notorious alcoholics.
Yet, common ailments affecting the young or middle-aged population go untreated because no one bothers to launch a charity drive for the average citizen, right?
The term "humanitarian" is used to cover everything, serving as a convenient way to fleece the hardworking, honest people who were raised to value labor and earned values over profiting from immorality.

Looking at the comments regarding the new law, I see nothing about personal responsibility for health—a factor that could influence insurance costs. This means the status quo remains: some will be careful, while others will continue to gamble with their health at everyone else's expense, under the guise that everything is shared.

Or take the medication situation here. I suspect that if it weren't for what they call the "third age," there wouldn't be seniors in the US consuming such massive quantities of drugs that they practically function as appendages to general practice clinics. Whether it's a bout of depression, a full moon, or just a minor ailment, they swarm the offices like ants; you can't even get an appointment without waiting five hours.
Where is the family medicine or the community doctor to prevent these bottlenecks?

Or the psychiatric services.
A completely dysfunctional health sector that is never where it needs to be. Meanwhile, the executives continue to receive massive payouts. For what?