"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K."

[KrazyHorse]

I don't see how being in a wheelchair in any way degrades the quality of life of a person that is relevant in any cost/benefit analysis.

That's because you're an idiot. Would you rather live a year able to walk or a year and a day in a wheelchair?

[Thue]

There is no opting out, and there is no chance of getting your current private healthcare at the same price once this goes through meaning many simply won't be able to afford their previous care level.

The public health care in Denmark and basically any other western country is cheaper and better than the one in the US, so all the statistics say. So I basically think that all the "it can't work" and "it will be worse" is silly. Like most Danes I am satisfied with the health care in Denmark, while statistics says that the Americans overall are not satisfied with their health care.

And who says that public health care+private add on will be more expensive? That is just an assertion without evidence.

I read The Economist, which is very pro capitalism and privatization, but unlike the current US Republican party still capable of relating to reality. Because they have looked at the statistics, and compared health care in the US with other western democracies, they have come down solidly in support of a single payer public health care. If there were any case for private health care The Economist would be pre-disposed to support it; that they do not speaks volumes to me.

[chequita guevara]

The difference is choice I suppose, as in right now I am free to buy as much insurance as I want without the weight of a government system destroying the market to greatly reduce my ability to better coverage.

No, you are able to buy as much insurance as you can afford and only if the insurance companies are willing to sell to you.

There's a major difference. If you're healthy and have a lot of money, you can over insure yourself. If you're poor or unhealthy, you're **** outta luck. Plus, if you get too expensive, you can be dropped, not matter how good your coverage is.

I'll take my chances with NHS.

[KrazyHorse]

The public health care in Denmark and basically any other western country is [...] better than the one in the US, so all the statistics say

You might want to avoid blanket statements which make you sound like a simpleton.

[KrazyHorse]

please fix the poly server. double posting is starting to get annoying

[Japher]

yeah, it almost got me

[SlowwHand]

You double post on purpose, KH. So **** off.

You could all join the military and have free health care, unless Obama screws that over, too.

[Patroklos]

That's because you're an idiot. Would you rather live a year able to walk or a year and a day in a wheelchair?

Whatever my choice, it is irrelevant to my benefit to society or my future health care costs.

The public health care in Denmark and basically any other western country is cheaper and better than the one in the US, so all the statistics say.

Cheaper perhaps, but that is not the only metric for measurement.

No, you are able to buy as much insurance as you can afford and only if the insurance companies are willing to sell to you.

And what I can afford is in large part related to my choices. I could be like a good many 20 something douchbags yuppies and spend my money an a BMW 3 series or I could drive a camary and have health insurance.

Living forever is not a right Che, it is a luxury. If you want to provide for emegency care and basic crap which is pretty much the case now fine, I'll compromise. However, while it is not a right to live forever I should not have my choice removed so that you can have your BMW 3 series AND health insurance.

There's a major difference. If you're healthy and have a lot of money, you can over insure yourself. If you're poor or unhealthy, you're **** outta luck. Plus, if you get too expensive, you can be dropped, not matter how good your coverage is.

You seem to think I have something against people being dropped because of expense. I don't. I have a problem with the government making that decision totally independant of any choice you ever made in your lifetime and at the same time suppressing any other option available to you.

[Grandpa Troll]

You double post on purpose, KH. So **** off.

Q F T

[Thue]

The public health care in Denmark and basically any other western country is [...] better than the one in the US, so all the statistics say

You might want to avoid blanket statements which make you sound like a simpleton.

But so the statistics I have seen says.

[Thue]

You seem to think I have something against people being dropped because of expense. I don't. I have a problem with the government making that decision totally independant of any choice you ever made in your lifetime and at the same time suppressing any other option available to you.

But the current system in the US where a corporation decides whether it will cover you is ok?

[chequita guevara]

You seem to think I have something against people being dropped because of expense. I don't. I have a problem with the government making that decision totally independant of any choice you ever made in your lifetime and at the same time suppressing any other option available to you.

In other words, the only objection you have with someone else deciding whether you live a little longer or die sooner is whether that person is a public or private bureaucrat. Same decision, same lack of accountability, but as long as the person isn't a government employee,

[KrazyHorse]

Whatever my choice, it is irrelevant to my benefit to society or my future health care costs.

Are you honestly this ****ing retarded?

This is not about your "benefit to society", you ****wit. They aren't handicapping based on income taxes paid or some such. This is about THEIR value to society as providers of health care. To simplify it to the level where even you might stand a chance of understanding it, imagine a world where people stand a 50% chance of getting disease A and a 50% chance of getting disease B. If they get disease A then the NHS can delay death, symptom free for 1 year. If they get disease B then the NHS can delay death for 1 year and 1 day, but the extra year and a day will be spent in a wheelchair. There is not enough money to do both. Now, you're telling me that the fact that the extra time is spent in a wheelchair has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NHS PROVIDING THE MOST VALUE TO SOCIETY GIVEN LIMITED RESOURCES?

You ****ing moron.

[KrazyHorse]

But so the statistics I have seen says.

Could you please be more specific and provide references, you twit?

"Statistics say that Danish health care is better" is like claiming "science says that my penis is more pleasing to women than yours"

The only difference is that the latter is manifestly true.

[chequita guevara]

That's a kinda of retarded example.

It's more like, with the money we could spend giving you a 25% chance making it another year, bed ridden and in pain, we could save five other people's lives.

It's a no brainer, and even insurance companies aren't going to go for the more expensive option.