What Do Australians Understand 110,000 Times Better Than Americans Do?

You clearly know nothing about government funding or the reform it would take. Where do you think all of our money goes? It goes to programs without regulations that people don't know about unless they are in it or know people who are in it and then get in it themselves. In addition there may even be more agencies deemed "secret" and if they go as the current administration is trying to get them to go right now they will have unlimited taxation authority. I encourage you to research it. I do hope they have tossed it but last I checked it was still being proposed and pushed.

... when they need medical care in America. Are they stuck with the bill, or does their government pay it? Never thought of it before.

In cases where they have to pay, "travel insurance" is frequently bought before their trip to cover such expenses.

Not always, however! I bought travel insurance for when I moved to Denmark. Unfortunately I went to a party and was drugged with a high amount of GHB to the point I OD'ed. After a trip to the hospital (heart stopped, wasn't breathing on my own, seizures and all that fun stuff) I was told to contact my insurance agency so the Danish hospital could process the claim properly.

I email/attach my info from the hospital. The insurance agency refuses to cover me because they "can't prove I didn't willingly ingest the drug for recreational use". Result? $8000 bill for a 4-hour stay so I don't die. I'm a college student and work four jobs, two of those jobs just to pay off that bill.

The usual advice is to purchase travel insurance when travelling to the US.

On my last trip to the US, I bought health insurance from a Japanese company for the equivalent of $125 for 2 weeks, and it covered major emergency care up to $300,000. Just an ambulance ride in the US would cost more than that. A small price to pay for peace of mind.

She bought health insurance for down here. It was fairly cheap and she was mostly covered as if she was still in Canada.
There was also something about auto insurance in case she got into an accident.

Can I buy that same insurance?

It sounds like that brand of insurance is better then any insurance I can
buy on my own here in the US?

If you are self supporting (lots of money), or have some special needed talent, or have a Canadian sponsor, you can move to Canada and get the same health care.

they get a 6 month visa to stay here and they cannot stay a day longer.

If they become ill during their stay, Canadian Healthcare picks up the tab.
Can you even comprehend that? I sure can't!

I do not know. But, it would stand to reason that if their country would normally foot the bill then they would do so in this case and if that is not the norm then they would not. Because the government already would pay for it anyway. The only downside is that money does not go back into their own economy which is part of the model and why it works but there are enough nationals across the board that not deviating from their own norm would do too much detriment because they would spend the money in either senario and the doctors who get paid by the gov would be free to spend it in the US anyway so they have no guarantee that the money would actually ever go back into the economy.

Short, sweet and right to the point.

Is there any industry or public concern that hasn't been corrupted by large corporate interests?

Yup this country is just a big for profit circle jerk.

If you make that banket statement you are correct. As long as you include global warming advocates who use information for financial gains, people who donate to museums to control them and gain money by manipulating the painting market, people who bribe the government, those who use race alone to obtain money from the government in addition to numerous others.

They are contributing to it by paying taxes.

In the year 2000 other countries contributed 1/2 to 2/3 of the costs that the US bears as a percent of GNP.

http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/suppl_6/3.full.pdf

The idea that they don't pay for it just encourages people to believe that it can be achieved without a tax increase.

The real equation is 17% of GNP (with minimalist coverage)/ 12% of GNP (with comprehensive coverage) -------> MEASUREABLE BETTER AND ONLY THOSE PROFITING FROM IT (AND THE UNINFORMED MASSES) DIRECTLY WOULD RESIST CHANGING IT.

We will have to pay for it, like the Australian, with higher taxes.

My Medicare tax on my income is $28 a paycheck - every two weeks. My Insurance premiums amount to around $354 a paycheck to cover me, my spouse, and my two dependents.
And I've got good insurance - what I pay is pretty much standard for a good comprehensive medical (including preventative, pharmacy, mental health and other specialist care), dental, and vision care.

So, even multiplying my Medicare tax by 4 to "cover everyone" in my household and then doubling that just to insure there will be care would be less than my Medicare tax and my Insurance premium together. It would also be cheaper on my employer.

Single payer or universal - it's the way for taxpayers to go. It might not be so great for the companies that are making massive profits off insurance premiums, but organizations like that can always find some way to get money to make money for themselves without having to provide much in the way of services to those who's pockets they are vacuuming money from.

Haele

Let's take this Australian's bill of $110,000, and distribute that cost among the people of the United States of America...

$0.0004 per citizen. That's... rounded up, by the way.

Yes. If we pitched our taxes towards paying this bill, it would be an astronomical burden of four ten-thousandths of a dollar upon our collective shoulders.

But wait! What if suddenly there were ten thousand Aussies all with lung embolisms, and they all wanted us, the god-fearing US taxpayers to foot their bills?!

Well, for those who are bad at maths and can't see the obvious answer here, that would raise our taxes by... One four-thousandth of a dollar.

We would need to foot the bills of over a million Aussies with lung embolisms before it even showed up on our tax bills. And if you wouldn't pay four cents to save a million people with lung embolisms, then fuck you, freerepublic is down the hall to the right, follow the smell of urine.

Don't forget we would also pay for all of each other medications. I have horrible asthma triggered by allergies and everything else. I take 3 allergy medications per day, 5 asthma medications per day in addition to my stomach problems which take a range of 2-5 medications per day. This is when im under control. Not including any fees for any regular doctors visits or procedures or when anything is exacerbated - which can add at least a thousand dollars per day, my monthly medications run about 5,000-7,000 dollars. And i'm only 20 years old. Sure im a bad case. But thats me on a good day. And im not alone. There are multitudes like me and multitudes who have it much much worse - who on a good day range from 5,000-7,000 per DAY. I'm not saying I don't think we should ave healthcare for everyone. What I'm saying is that taxes will need to go up. A lot. Across the board. Just look at those who tried to do it before us. We have examples of what is failing and what is thriving and mimic what we can because not doing so would be dumb when the answer key is right before us.

That's the thing about it. Opponents bring up the tax increase, and yes, the total cost is going to be large. People see that large number, and apply that to their checkbooks, rather than doing hte math and finding out that that they'll be paying less per annum to help out every other American, than they probably cram into those "Please help" fundraising cans next to a cash register every year to help one kid, and having more effect on the health.

Also the costs will decrease over time. Often the greater costs can be derived from cumulative damage from people leaving illnesses and injuries untreated. Once those are treated, they're done, or become lower-maintenance. This is evident in every nation that institutes this sort of program.

There's a big, concerted effort to, basically, lie to Americans about the benefits of dsingle-payer, being promulgated by the industries with the most to lose; the bloated, grossly inefficient insurance companies that make their money by denying coverage. We should let Adam Smith have his way with them; they either figure out how to provide service superior to what the government offers (As private insurance companies in other nations have done) or they die out.

grantcart

Yes we do pay more taxes than in the US, for the privilege of having a "free" healtcare, where we can get medical attention, to a low cost when needed.. But I will prefer paying my taxes, and be given "free" medical healtcare, rather han live in a country, where I more or less have to pay for my physical or psychical health, by the ten of thousands.. And where even a modest operation can ruin my credit for the next decade or so...

Diclotican

Households on US Median income (US$50,233):
= 14.75% of income taxed in USA
= 19.8% of income taxed in Australia

Higher Incomes pay more:
household income of (US$71,400):
= 17.8% of income taxed in the USA
= 27.1% of income taxed in Australia

Lower incomes pay less:
household income of (US$34,001):
= 13.2% of income taxed in the USA
= 13.5% of income taxed in Australia

No one, literally no one, holds the straw man thinking that Universal health care is free of charge, that's just something folks say when what they mean is 'I don't want to pay for poor people'.
Most of us care more for our fellow citizens than we do for an extra few thousand bucks.

I think you have a more sanguine view of our fellow citizens than I do. If most of us had that feeling, we'd have universal health care already. People may have that notion deep in their hearts, but it needs to be pulled out and showed to them.

I think that too many citizens--on both sides of the aisle, though mostly on the GOP side-- have bought the "I don't want to pay for those shiftless and lazy poor people, "others," "illegals" and (fill-in-the-blank, i.e. anyone not like THEM). The GOP does a great job of selling people the idea that the poor so-and-so who is working three part-time jobs from seven in the morning to ten at night, six days a week, is somehow "lazy," taking "our" money and benefits, and "getting over" on "the system."

I am in the "I got MINE" club--I have TRICARE (not free by a long shot, anymore, but still cheap), thanks to my service in Uncle Sam's military, but I don't feel as though, just because "I got MINE" that I don't have responsibility for others. We're all in this shit together, a rising tide lifts all boats. I'd happily pay more in taxes if it meant that all of us had that little bit of security. After all, "I" don't have any kids in the public schools now, but I still see the utility of my property tax money going to support those schools. And "I" don't drive all over hell as much as I used to, so I don't use the roads as much, but I have no problem with my taxes going to repair those roads so they are safe for all. I get a bit irritated, though, I will admit, when those assholes up on the Hill, in a "bipartisan" moment, manage to vote themselves a nice pay rise while they're screwing people on social security out of a COLA.

I have a neighbor who is past retirement age and who has a husband who is older than she is. She could have retired a few years ago, except she needs the health insurance because her husband has a few expensive health issues and she fears he'd go without if she stopped working.

The problem is that we already pay for all of that. But in bad ways. We need to go a clear sweeping reform such that everyone pays equal proportionate to their income (so those who make more pay more and those who make less still pay less) but have a system in place that makes it such that although we all get everything we need - education healthcare etc - we all are contributing to society to the best of our ability - ie germany and england. That way the issue the gop had is gone. Everyone is doing their upmost to contribute and then when we all get it back its all fine. No one has paid more or less than is their fair share.

he loves not worrying about health care costs (and he was before moving a rightwinger). He told us he pays higher taxes; however, he gets paid more in canada doing the same job he did here.

Absolutely correct. Nothing is free. The only way people get things for free is when someone pays more than their share, rinse, repeat, and then the economy goes kaput.

She's had numerous tests, been fitted for a peritoneal dialysis catheter, had a second surgery to expose the plumbing, currently she's on a week-long course on how to use the thing, and I have to work from home Friday so I'm there to accept the delivery of several palettes of medical supplies.

My costs:

• $CAN 50 parking (several visits, downtown location)
  
• $CAN 10 pop (vending machines)
  
• $CAN 100 gas (the various clinics are in different parts of the city)
  

How much would that be down south?

Probably about as much as my medical bills/bankruptcy.

Medicare is available to individuals with end state renal disease, no matter what their age, as long as they have worked long enough under Social Security or are the spouse or dependent child of such a worker.

http://www.medicare.gov/publications/pubs/pdf/10128.pdf

There are some waiting periods involved, the person must pay the Medicare Part B premiums, and is also responsible for the 20 percent of the Medicare approved amount that Medicare does not pay.

Renal transplant patient here. 80% of all medical cost associated with my care were covered by Medicare, along with the care involved in having my mom donate her kidney to me. 20% had to be covered by secondary insurance. It still was a lot of money, but I can't imagine having to do it without Medicare.

It's great that we do eventually have some ways to provide it, but what a system. So first they will agonize at losing all the savings for the family from the initial bills that will be uncovered. Definitely not comparable. Though it is good to see that they won't die due to not having coverage.


When Medicare coverage begins
When you enroll in Medicare based on ESRD and you’re on dialysis,
Medicare coverage usually starts the first day of the fourth month of
your dialysis treatments. For example, if you start getting your dialysis
treatments in July, your Medicare coverage would start on October 1.


Important: Medicare won’t cover surgery or other services needed to prepare
for dialysis (such as surgery for a blood access ) before Medicare
coverage begins. However, if you complete home dialysis training, your
Medicare coverage will start the month you begin regular dialysis, and these
services could be covered.

He was in a "club" with a few friends in the same boat, and they'd get together, make it a social occasion, and "spot" one another for safety's sake.

He's no longer in the club--got a kidney and is doing GREAT. It's a miracle--he stayed active, despite his situation, pushing through I'm sure even when he didn't feel like it, but now....wow! He's VIGOROUS. He really was a success story for transplantation, and he waited years for his kidney.

best to you and your wife.

Don't forget that you are actually paying for some of it via taxes. You are paying much less than you would out of pocket here, and probably overall, but I don't know your tax rate in particular so I can't compare, but coverage depends of the type of insurance you have here from an HSA, an HMO, government versions etc.

Nixon and Agnew. So sad that greed wins out.

Well said. US "'health' 'care'" is white collar crime.

Buying politicians is, indeed, the best investment.

And people who kill other people for profit need to be put down like a rabid dog.

Thanks for the thread, Playinghardball.

My sis moved to AU a decade or so ago. She loves the healthcare system.

THIS American understands.

So there.

Swede

I guess the Australians are in no need of 12 nuclear powered Aircraft carriers either..

Diclotican

Swede

I don't know really... But they look cool even though they are expensive to build, and rather expensive to use - but when they don't need to fill for 40 - 50 year it might is worth the price..

But even when the 12 aircraft carriers is expensive - they are not the most expensive toys in the US arsenal - some other programs, like the infamous "missile shield" program is far more expensive than 12 nuclear powered aircraft carriers - and the missile shield program are not even working as promised, mostly because it have never been (to my knowledge) used under realistic environments - just when the sun is bright and the air is "just right".. And somehow I doubt the North Koreans and Iranians will wait to lob their missiles to LA, when the sun is bright and air is "just right" to please the americans...

I somehow understand the russians, when they doesn't want the missile radars in their own back jard, mostly because of the possibility of First hand strike, where the russians are not able to hit back.. First hand strike have been the wet dream of both the russians and americans for more than 50 year now - and US is maybe in the process of been able to go there.. And I somehow think the russians would be pissed if that was to happened..

Diclotican

Had a similar story. A British physician was in Vegas. He had a heart attack. I think he spent 1 week in a Nevada hospital and was billed $63,000. He wouldn't have had a bill if it happened at home.

very nice!

I think s/he meant "free at the point of service." Obviously Austalian health care is paid for by taxes.

in some cases we are taxed on the purchase of health care needs, no less. So two people who both pay juicy income taxes get sick, one pays for treatment the other does not. The one who paid taxes is also not allowed to deduct the health care costs in most cases.
The entire population of the world knows that taxes pay for services provided by this and other governments. Explaining that is like chiming in to declare the sky is blue. Obvious to the point of redundancy...

S/he thinks doctors not giving their services free is a white collar crime. She meant free all around dont give them so much credit. If you make a written claim on the internet it must be taken at face value.

So they don't mean whatever it is yr claiming they mean. What he/she means is that our health system is far superior and fairer to those who can't afford super-duper expensive treatment than the bloodsucking and profit driven system that the US has...

I did the math and it turned out he was being subsidized by about $2000 (USD) a year. That is, if he had to pay for a legit policy for the same level of coverage, he'd had to have paid that much more.

I let it go though, but I thought it was amusing.

About 18 months ago, i was admitted to the Royal Darwin Hospital (RDH) with septicemia in my foot. I ended up losing my left big toe. I was in hospital for five and a half weeks!!!

Before I went to hospital, I had been receiving care in the community and had been attending a walk-in foot clinic in the RDH. After the operation, I received further treatment both in the community and at the clinic.

Total direct cost to me for the operation: $0.00
Total direct cost to me for the hospital care: $0.00
Total direct cost to me for the community care and walk-in clinic: $0.00
Total direct cost to me for medication following the operation: $100.00, maybe $200.00

As a taxpayer, I was paying taxes and a Medicare levy (minuscule compared to some of the amounts I read here), knowing that people were being taken care of on "my" money (and I paid very willingly) and hoping to hell I'd never need similar care. But I did.

Never been to the US (would love to go there), but if I did, the first thing I'd arrange would be health cover.

Except I didn't lose my toe

I was in a public hospital here in Canberra for an operation. I'd been going through the private system coz I've got private health cover, but got the shits when the specialist quoted me thousands of dollars for the op and the health fund only would cover a few hundred of it. So I went back to my GP, who booked me in through a clinic at the hospital. They scheduled my surgery as a public patient the next week as they rated it kind of urgent surgery. I spent nearly two weeks in hospital, as well as lots of follow up stuff in the following weeks.

The total direct cost to me was: $0.00

I'm very happy to pay the Medicare levy to do my bit to keep our health system going, though I avoid paying the Medicare Surcharge by being in a private health fund...

And anyone who goes to the US without travel insurance has rocks in their head!

Thanks for the reminder. In any case, the monthly amount was small compared to my beer expenditure...well, it was so affordable, I just paid it. No thought required.

100,000 people die in the U.S. each year due to lack of health care.

That's like multiple 9/11s.

If this health care disaster were happening in another country, the U.S. would rush in to help.

Apparently the U.S. govt. hasn't yet figured out, that the more of us who are allowed to die, the fewer taxes they'll get paid.

Single-payer health care NOW.

Problem solved.

Just how do you think the doctors have money to support themselves if they dont get paid? Government paying for US citizens healthcare would be great but it would call for complete reform which people don't want. People want something for nothing and do not realize that everyone has to pay more taxes.
Most specialists dont finish paying off school loans until they are over 50 years old. Thats because most go to school for a minimum of 15 year post high school and thats for regular specialties not for several subspecialties. With a pulmonary embolism your doctors had to have several subspecialties. The machines the hospitals have for the tests are usually used and rented and even then cost the hospital hundreds of thousands of dollars to rent each month. Getting the test results also takes similar equipment run by lab techs who need to be paid and to pay of their school loans and feed their families. The doctors need to cover ridiculous malpractice insurance premiums (which is another problem Australia doesn't have because that is a different system entirely.) Then the doctor needs to be able to feed his family and pay everyday expenses like everyone else. They work very hard and work many more hours than people give them credit for. I'm sure other jobs require a lot of work but doctors, especially specialists work for usually 48 hours at a time at the beck and call of the hospital and patients - voluntarily. Most dont get more than a day off every few weeks with a combination of hospital call, call for their own patients, hospital rounds, keeping up with research, doing their own research, taking tests to certify they are up with research, charting for at least an hour per patient for various reasons including medical necessity and malpractice coverage - all of with are MANDATORY. They usually get about 4-5 hours of sleep when they are NOT on call and are only on clinic or working with their own patients. In addition, insurance will only pay out 40-60% of what they ask and the doctors cannot do a thing about it. Some doctors take advantage of people this is true. But its also true of every other profession. Most doctors genuinely care and have sacrificed and dedicated their lives to help people and this is the kind of thanks they get. Sure universal healthcare is a great dream and I support it - but protests that ask for free free free and me me me and expect to give nothing are simply childish and illogical. Everyone must give equally. 50% of 100,000 dollars is 50,000 dollars. 50% of 500,000 dollars is 250,000 dollars. That is 5x what the person with less money would contribute. But, it would be equal. Everyone would equally contribute what they can. If you want free free free and to not give at all then move to a communist country. If you want everyone to be able to have what they need then you need to understand that that kind of progress takes time in order to institute reform - reform that our country needs in more areas than one. And saying that people who work hard are stealing from those who don't work as hard is not fair. In America we work for what we want and that's the beauty of it. I agree we shouldn't have to worry about necessities to survive. But if we want a system like Germany or like England we can't simply say "give it to me now" we have to make policy changes that change how we get how much money and then where it goes. We need a flat tax equally distributed to necessities and in a system that ensures each person works to the absolute best of their ability. Otherwise we will have a result worse than the Greek and Italian economies currently. So the next time you want to attack people who spend their entire lives decide to saving people they don't even know, knowing full well that half of them will be rude to them and mean to them when they still try to save their lives - think before you speak. Because your end goal is a good goal. It is. But we all need to understand what its going to take to get there. And we can't be divided if thats what we want. To that end however, we cannot give free healthcare to every country in the world. That only works in places like the EU where they know their nationals will receive the same treatment they give. Thats the only way things like that work. You cant expect to get free things from a system you give nothing to. Otherwise the system would be abused and wiped out.

You're an idiot.

Australia's immigration conditions are easily available on the web. Having a brain is one of them.

You luck out.

As well as better health care?