Even if you have 'free' healthcare, the care will be crap. Consider this: you have an illness that could not be considered lethal or fatal in any way, but it does limit your activity - say, intense chronic migranes. Your employer is worried that you cannot perform your job well enough, and so you are at risk losing your job. You can't do any task for long periods of time at the risk of messing up what you were working on by accident. Keep in mind these migranes aren't suddenly appearing - you've had them since you were a child, but you're so used to them that you hardly notice them. They've been getting worse recently, though, and your co-workers finally convince you to go to the doctor. Unfortunately for you, it's sick season, so there are a lot more people who are in danger of losing their lives - sad for them, but in the meantime, you might not see the doctor for another few weeks, and there's no guarantee that he'll give you the right prescription - after all, it is free healthcare, so the service is a bit crappy. It gives you little chance to prosper.
There are plenty of countries with good healthcare in the world that is free. There is no correlation that free means low quality. In fact, many systems combine both private and government elements, which makes it better suited to task. The French system combines private and public sectors to provide universal health coverage to all. Most citizens receive their insurance through their employer and almost everyone has supplemental private insurance. The majority of medical bills are paid for by the government (funds from payroll and income taxes) and the remainder is footed by individual's supplemental private insurance.
And even if the quality drops a little, I would rather that, than be left bereft completely of healthcare.
The US ranks behind quite a few nations, and many European ones in fact. Whilst it is true the data is old and the factors might be biased for the conservatives, there are a multitude of other studies backing this mediocre showing.
Which is worse? Getting a slightly dodgy doctor, or no doctor?
I could go a while into finances, but I'll just say that if you stay out of debt, work about a $14,784 annual income (at $7, 40 hours a week) and pay all of your taxes, save up 40% of what's left for emergencies (enough to pay for average health insurance premiums) along with all the other expenses, you should be able to survive. That's with a wage lower than most minimums at state level in the US, and you might be able to pull a part-time job beside, depending on how much sleep you want to get at night.
Might. You might. But the fact is, many Americans don't. The healthcare system is grossly inept and expensive.
As far as I've understood health insurance and healthcare, whether you're rich or you're poor, you still pay roughly the same amount. While with insurance you pay less when it comes to bills, you're roughly paying the same, or even more, depending - you still have to pay the health insurance every month to be insured, and the company takes massive interest on it. When you're in an emergency, the company will pay off the majority of the bill with what you paid them collectively in the past. That's also how the company earns their own income - they just 'take' whatever you haven't hurt. Some companies - actually, a lot of them might do this - examine peoples' profiles and decide if it would be worth taking them - they don't want someone who will be costing them lots of money, so they only take people who take life safe and have very little medical problems. Anyways, the rich might seem to be paying a lot less up front, but in reality they're paying about the same when counting interest.
Insurance plans are exorbitant. A March 2010 study by the Center for Studying Health System Change, a Washington, DC think tank, found that out-of-pocket costs for health insurance premiums and services were rising faster than family incomes. Published in the journal Health Affairs, the study found ''â¦After accounting for general inflation, family incomes remained stagnant between 2004 and 2006, while out-of-pocket spending on premiums and health care services increased 8.5% over the two-year period. Overall, total out-of-pocket spending increased, on average, about 5 percent annually between 2001 and 2006, and was similar for the 2001â"4 and 2004â"6 periods.'' The report found the largest increases in out-of-pocket expenses were for those with private health insurance, including middle- and higher-income families.
'Cheap' things are expensive: another perspective on finances - while unrelated to health care; just trying to get my point across - would be mortgage. For a mortgage amount of $225,000 at 7%, you have two choices for paying off. First is a 30-year mortgage at $1,349 a month. Second is a 15-year mortgage at $1,899 a month. An extra $550 a month! That's a lot of money. You only want to pay what you have to, right? Well, at the end of the 15-year mortgage you'll have paid $341,762, over $100,000 more than the mortgage amount was! Thank goodness you weren't paying as much with the 30-year mortgage... Oh wait. At $1,349 a month, over 30 years you would be paying $485,636, which is over twice what the mortgage amount was. Dang. Anyways, I was just trying to point out that cheaper isn't always... Cheaper. Personally, I don't think that paying 'nothing' for national crapcare would be worth it. Just my opinion, though. Some might think otherwise.
This is a completely different example that's just a red herring.
UK for the chicks (I think accents are hot) and the US for the whiskey. I don't really understand the whole monarchy thing. I know the UK isn't a true monarchy anymore but it still adheres to a lot of weird customs. If you wanna have a Queen, I can sort of understand that, but what's up with lords and all these weird titles? Other that that, I'm mostly okay with the UK.
I like both, the UK's weather can be dreary but parts of the US are horribly hot sometimes. I wouldn't mind living in Portsmouth or near Oxford, but London isn't an excellent place to live. I wouldn't mind the US either, they have some lovely places, but I will wait for the politics to get nicer.
I hate the English accent. I hate, hate, hate it! Not trying to be harsh to those who might have it, but it drives me nuts.
Going with Xzeno on this on; they're too close for comparison. I couldn't decide because the only differences are minuscule relative to the rest of the world.
ill pick both U.S.A and U.K. because they have good and bad side which is normal but i don't live there its better here than those 2 countries. Best be in 3rd world countries, doesn't much think of money just have right food, fun and loving people is enough for me
