Why do many guest workers & immigrants complain about the US economic system?

[Nathans_Dad]

A healthcare system such as Canada has would never work in the US, IMHO. Liberals would be all for it until they see the waitlist to see a doctor. The US citizen wants results and they want them NOW. I currently work in a socialized medicine system and the patients are often unhappy with the wait times involved in care.

I think someone posted in this thread about Canadian physicians coming into the US to work due to low pay in Canada and many Canadians come across the border for health care because they don't want to wait.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by Christien
Answer me this (and I'm really asking, not trying to be a twit!): If someone shows up in an ER having a serious heart attack but with no insurance, what happens? What about a gunshot wound? Or any other serious, life-threatening issue?

Life threatening situations are different and not what we are discussing here. Obviously you would take care of that person and we do take care of those people in the US. The real issue is routine healthcare and care for those who have insurance and are citizens.

[Tobra]

Originally posted by Rikao4
Livi, what a sad state of affairs. So when you hit the $ for your hard work and idea..some slob down the road will benefit, and still not go to work..Sorry ,I'm not my or your brother's keeper. Matter of fact ..get out.
Rika

that is one of many reasons my grandfather left Russia in the early 1900's

[Rick Lee]

Christien, all hospitals are required to stabilize those in life-threatening situations. Once that's taken care of, they start asking about your insurance situation. There are free, state-subsidized clinics just about everywhere for those with non-life-threatening situations. It's just that folks with insurance don't usually choose those places. I'm not real picky about doctors or hospitals, so I never have a problem picking some in-network guy whenever my insurance changes or I switch jobs. I'm also in excellent health and have never been to the emergency room or even had stitiches. My gf, on the other hand, has had major surgery, 80% of which was covered by her student health plan. Her 20% of that bill put her in the poor house. She applied for financial aid from the hospital and got $10k wiped off the bill. Now she's still on the hook for another $2k or so, which is manageable. Believe me, it's not nearly as heartless here as the folks in socialized medicine countries make it out to be. But there's not free universal health care either, which I think is fine.

[Jeff Higgins]

I'm not so sure we are keeping manufacturing jobs here via artificial means. I believe the opposite, that we are able to export them through artificial means. I know that's kind of a vague concept, so let me try to explain.

I'm an engineer at a large manufacturing company that has outsourced, overseas, a great deal of its more mundane tasks. Did they go to a company overseas that had developed the methods to manufacture these parts on their own? In other words, were there companies that had competed fairly, with their own werewithall, to rise to a position to where they could compete with the American workers? No. The manufacturing processes and expertise that was developed in a lrage part by these American workers was given free gratis to the foriegn workers. Don't think for a moment that our manufacturing prowess was developed by some highly educated managers or manufacturing engineers; most of it has come from the "trenches" of manufacturing. Is it justifiable to give this expertise away?

The other downside to this is all innovation and improvement driven back by the shop personel just plain stops. Whatever manufacturing package we send overseas becomes frozen in time on the day they start.

I'm certainly not for a "free lunch" for anyone. Everyone needs to pull their weight; no make-work jobs as telephone support monkies. My rub is with the manufacturing jobs where the expertise was developed here and sent to some third-world area that certainly could never have come up with it themselves. Does the company that employed these workers that helped them develop their manufacturing methods owe these people anything at all? Or does it belong to the company to do with what it will?

[Rikao4]

Been there&worked there,
lot's of folk's choose cable and beer $ over insurance, any ins. Car's included...they know they won't get turned away...just have to wait, how dare they make them wait.
Rika

[Tobra]

Originally posted by Christien
Fair enough, I guess it comes down to difference of opinion then.

Answer me this (and I'm really asking, not trying to be a twit!): If someone shows up in an ER having a serious heart attack but with no insurance, what happens? What about a gunshot wound? Or any other serious, life-threatening issue?

they are treated, it is the law.

Originally posted by Rick Lee
Call me crazy. But if you want it and can't afford it, it's a luxury. Fortunately, socialized health care has been repeatedly rejected by American voters. I hope it stays this way.

Thank goodness. Americans have the wrong mentality for socialized medicine or managed care to work well. If one person is a fat bastard who is a heavy smoking diabetic, doing nothing to improve his health, you have a huge burden on the system. Americans have certain freedoms, including eating, smoking drinking etc themselves to death. The costs would be too great, unless people suddenly start acting responsibly, and I am confident that one of those monkeys from the Wizard of Oz will fly from my ass before that happens

Originally posted by Rikao4
Been there&worked there,
lot's of folk's choose cable and beer $ over insurance, any ins. Car's included...they know they won't get turned away...just have to wait, how dare they make them wait.
Rika

see above

[Christien]

Rick, that's news to me, and good news. So there is at least some kind of health safety-net in place in the US. But doesn't your girlfiend applying for financial aid to pay her hospital bill contradict the spirit of your statements "if you want it and can't afford it, it's a luxury" and "a first world economy should be logical and sane enough to not hand out luxuries as rights to those who can't afford them." Maybe not literally, in that her hospital bill wasn't reduced by $10K because it was her right, but I took your statements to mean that if you can't afford it, the gov't shouldn't pick up the tab.

The other Rick:
There is most definitely a problem with wait times here, and it's something that I don't think anyone knows how to deal with. In Alberta they've been working to push through a two-tier system whereby the current level of health care will be maintained, but those who can afford it can bypass wait times for things like regular dr visits or MRIs at a pay-for-service clinic. Some say it's great and will relieve the public system of much of its burden, some say it won't work and too many dr's will jump ship for more money to the private clinics, leaving the public system in a worse condition.

[Christien]

Originally posted by Tobra
If one person is a fat bastard who is a heavy smoking diabetic, doing nothing to improve his health, you have a huge burden on the system.

Excellent point - I forgot about that. I'm sure I'm not the only one who argues that our health system should NOT be paying to treat people for self-inflicted problems like smoking or alcohol/drug abuse, obesity, etc. I'm sure there are arguments to be made for substance abuse, and I know it's never 100% clear that any condition someone may come up with is directly attributable to smoking, but I've said for years that if you're a smoker, you should be prepared to forego your health care rights and foot the bill yourself for anything even remotely related to smoking. Likewise, if you're a fat lazy slob stuffing back cheeseburgers, you should be paying your own healthcare costs.

[Rick Lee]

I didn't say it was a RIGHT that she got the financial aid. It was good fortune. The hospital or their charity offers it to people who meet certain criteria and she obviously met those criteria. It's the same with college tuition - crazy, crazy expensive here. There is no right to a free college education. But people who meet certain criteria, either through academic or athletic merit or financial need, can get a good portion of their tuition covered by others, not necessarily the state. I have no problem with this. I have a huge problem with entitlement mentalities.

[Nathans_Dad]

Christien: I can envision the US going to a two-tiered system where there would be nationalized health care for those who chose to not carry health insurance and traditional health care for those who carried insurance. In fact, I think this plan has already been proposed by the legislature.

The problem is that the Democrats don't want any system they see as giving better or more timely healthcare to those who can afford to pay for it. My personal position is that the US is not a socialist state (not yet at least) and those who can pay for things get them. Country club members play on nicer golf courses, private jets allow people to get places faster and easier. Why should healthcare be any different? I agree that everyone should have access to healthcare and there should be a system to accept those who cannot afford insurance. To lower everyone to a single level in order to make things "fair" just goes against everything our country is built on and that system would be doomed to failure. In fact, there isn't any limit on the lawyer you can hire and you can bet the rich would sue the living hell out of the government if they had to wait 4 weeks for their heart bypass.

[Christien]

Rick Lee: I specifically mentioned that her bill wasn't reduced because it was her right.

Other Rick: Couldn't agree more. The question is will a 2-tier system erode the quality of the public system. There are very good arguments for both sides, and no answers yet. My personal view, as far as our system is concerned, is that a 2-tier system is perfectly acceptable so long as the public system retains what quality is currently there. You're right that it's not right to lower everyone to a sub-par system just in the interest of fairness. But your reference to the legal system may be somewhat telling. Those who can afford it can access top-notch legal services, those who can't get bottom-of-the-barrel, fulfil-your-Miranda-rights-and-nothing-more representation. (no different here)

[dhoward]

Originally posted by Christien
Excellent point - I forgot about that. I'm sure I'm not the only one who argues that our health system should NOT be paying to treat people for self-inflicted problems like smoking or alcohol/drug abuse, obesity, etc. I'm sure there are arguments to be made for substance abuse, and I know it's never 100% clear that any condition someone may come up with is directly attributable to smoking, but I've said for years that if you're a smoker, you should be prepared to forego your health care rights and foot the bill yourself for anything even remotely related to smoking. Likewise, if you're a fat lazy slob stuffing back cheeseburgers, you should be paying your own healthcare costs.

Likewise, if you choose to work on your Porsche and smash you hands because of an improperly placed jack stand, you should be prepared to forego your health care rights and foot the bill yourself for anything even remotely related to recreational wrenching.

Who draws the line?

[gaijindabe]

Originally posted by Christien
Rick, that's news to me, and good news. So there is at least some kind of health safety-net in place in the US.

Actually - this amazes me. I was trying to poke fun in my last post, but Europeans and Canadians really believe we only have health care for the privately insured. For a start, the US medicaid and medicare (for the indigent and retired) programs I am sure have budgets 20 times the cost of the entire Canadian public healthcare system. And I am sure the quality of care and per-patient budget is greater as well..

Have a friend who was diagnosed with breast cancer a few years ago - she was literally between jobs with no health insurance. A perfect storm of owning a home, having savings and facing a difficult illness. So what happened? 99.9% of her bills were picked up by the State, the research hospital and the drug companies. Yes, she fell behind financially, but received world class care is back to work and doing very well.

[Christien]

Originally posted by gaijindabe
Have a friend who was diagnosed with breast cancer a few years ago - she was literally between jobs with no health insurance. A perfect storm of owning a home, having savings and facing a difficult illness. So what happened? 99.9% of her bills were picked up by the State, the research hospital and the drug companies. Yes, she fell behind financially, but received world class care is back to work and doing very well.

How is this story any different than anyone else who's down on their luck, "in between jobs" or otherwise unable financially to afford health care? (not including the truly lazy) Sounds to me like you just made a great case for socialized health care.

[Rick Lee]

Actually Christien, we have a law that lets laid-off or departed employees keep their previous health coverage, as long as they pickup the tab, I believe at the same cost their previous company was paying for it. It's called COBRA benefits and I can't remember what the acronym stands for. I've done it before when I was laid off and it took a few mos. to get the next job or before the new job's insurance kicked in. It ain't cheap, but it can be cheaper than shopping for new insurance, especially if you're in the middle of some treatment or expensive illness.

[gaijindabe]

So the truly lazy are turned away? Nothing socialized about that.

Americans (or rather a majority) see socialized health care as limiting options and innovation. For the sake of "fairness" this may be o.k. elsewhere, but not here.

We like to believe your system is bogged down by bureaucracy and folks not valuing something that is "free". And you all believe poor Americans are dying in the streets for want of a simple check up. Both false assumptions.

[dtw]

COBRA = Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

(LOVE government acronyms...)

[Superman]

Originally posted by red-beard
Ah yes, that is why this country has the worst economic outlook in the world.

I'm swamped these days so I didn't read through the posts yet but just wanted to see if you guys are still knocking this around. As far as the US having a super-bright economic outlook, well, I think that is fantasy. I think we're about to get our asses kicked up one side of this planet and down the other. Unless you ask Dubya or Fox News, in which case we're the brave, strong, savior of the world and the leader in all categories.

[Rikao4]

Heard insurance co. are selling a fast track version to those that want & can afford it in Europe.That is, you have some extra $, you get fast tracked in the social system.Hospitals and Dr. love it..they get paid fast.
Do I expect faster treatment over the folks with none..unless theirs is a life threatening emerg. you bet I do. Note..I didn't say better.
Rika