Gotti wrote:The real deal wrote:Chief Gotti, its not that simple. Preventive or primary healthcare will do nothing to make US system better. Nothing. The truth about the system is Americans want CHOICES.......patients without insurance can fire specialists (Surgeons) and ask for alternatives, can get a PET scan in the smallest American city....Look, there's more resources for the have nots in this system, I swear.....community clinics, residencies, all Big hospitals run free clinics, special programs.....There's so much outlets for so called indigent....My county even established insurance for them.....Look, any system that'd spoil you with so much choices will be expensive, period! No country can match what US has to over, I experienced NHS, England for 1 year. This country seeks perfection in everything. Trust me. Its imperfection will be the stopping point for most countries.
As for the National Stadium, I wish I were in a position to take the risk, I would.......maybe with your help
One more thing: if you do not have money, you do NOT have choices...
While I am forever proud of the US as my country of birth and the country that I have proudly spent by far the majority of my life thus far in, thankfully the qualitative education that I received mostly in the US has endowed me with enough independent thought not to drink the so-called “choices” Kool-Aid being peddled by paid lobbyists (and the politicians benefiting from their legalized corruption). If these “choices” were so beneficial, Congress would opt-out of its “socialist” single-payer system and allow each Congressperson to make his/her own individual choice! I do not want to stray too far (we have strayed far enough from the topic already), this past Sunday, we had the worst mass shooting, perpetuated with a fully automatic weapon, in a country that on the average has more than 1 mass shooting (defined as more than 4 persons shot - excluding the shooter) per day - 383 mass shootings in 2016, with 33,000 gun-related deaths. But instead of enacting reasonable gun control legislation like every other advanced democracy (because paid lobbyists have couched it as a matter of “freedom”), let’s instead concentrate on the “best” equipment (akin to your PET scan argument) deployed by the Police after the occurrence of something that might well have been prevented (or at least chances thereof significantly diminished).
Hmm Gotti,
Here’s a question for you. Are you sure, or significantly confident that you have enough perspective to strongly argue for socialized medicine AGAINST privatized medicine to the point of conclusion or almost debasing privatized systems? First, some of the comments you’ve made in buttressing your point jump out at me namely…
1. Interacted or have experience via work experience from financial / finance industry lens (in the US, wall street)
2. You were born, mostly lived in the US, and quite intimate with the US system (which is mostly privatized?)
Nigerian award winner author / Novelist Chimamanda Adichie in her video – The Danger of single story (
https://ed.ted.com/featured/TXtMhXIA#review) introduced what i reckon is a relevant concept in your discourse. In summary, a story, spoken within the context of one perspective risks a critical misunderstanding.
Many people in the US, have an opinion, strong opinion about the US health system. Many have and have formed that opinion based on their singular experience within mostly the US system. Some that have lived and been served in it are convinced that the systems in Canada and the UK are better. Certain singular perspectives like the price of drugs being cheaper (a generalization) are sometimes used to support or discount the argument.
Gotti, I can tell you’re not stupid. I started this conversation with a question that you can answer to yourself honestly. I think your arguments are laced with very scary generalizations.
Comparative Experience:
I’m a bit fortunate (or unfortunate) to have comparative experience and perspective of both the US and Canadian systems. I lived in the UK and have perspective of the NHS but I was too young. When I say perceptives, I don’t mean lived and experience one perspective and then read up on the other. I mean experienced both perspectives as a practitioner and a client.
Gotti, If this was 2014, I would have been ALL for your position with endorsements. It would however have come from a singular perspective. In 2014, I personally had strong reservations for the US healthcare system for the reasons you stated. At the time, I had lived in the US for 15 years – straight. My healthcare perspective was singular, mostly US. Fast forward to 2016, on account of my experience with the Canadian system, I have had to soften my stance, mostly negative stance on the privatized US style. I live in Canada now.
In socialized systems as you have in Canada, UK, the major advantage of healthcare access (due to affordability) is ONLY theoretical. Why? Because in many instances socialization creates a significant demand / supply imbalance that triggers a wait list. LONG waits in many cases. While everyone has a right and covered for many preventive routines via walk-ins BUT mostly via his/her family DOCTOR, access is impossible if the wait to get a family doctor is so long. What benefit is “free” or what is accessibility without availability? The Canadian Province of Nova Scotia currently has a 5 year wait for a family Doctor. 5 years. So yes, while money is not the barrier, there still is a barrier. For example, immigrants that arrive in these provinces may not have family Doctors for 5 years. You see that the impeding factor has changed from money to “indigenous advantage”. You can’t benefit from preventive care when there’s scarcity of critical skill. Is it free, yes, but people give up when accessibility is a nightmare and the outcome is the same as what you have in the US or worse when viewed through an accessibility lens. You see someone trained still has to see you for prevention. The scarcity in Canada also involves Doctor Alternatives – Nurse Practitioners. Please take a read at this -
https://globalnews.ca/news/3837974/nova ... ly-doctor/
I typically caution people of the risks of analysis and conclusion within healthcare via the mostly accessibility lens. Don’t get me wrong, accessibility is a valid lens but I’d rather compare through an outcomes lens.
I am not advocating for one or the other here, I just want you to temper what appears to read like conviction.
Realdeal might have a point and he might have a stronger point in his warning on the argument that your points might be based on dangerous generalizations. I personally get a bit worried when folks that are (I suspect) as informed as you are, make global conclusions (i.e. almost so convinced of one perspective over the other) on what in my opinion are generalizations borne out of singular stories.