Medical bills account for 60% of US bankruptcies

[Lonestar]

DMVs also vary greatly from state to state. The ones I was stuck in when I lived in georgia? Sucktastic. Took me hours of standing in line to get my license or get a renewal, and that's when I showed up early. In Washington state? Less than an hour when I showed up at midday and that's including the complementary registering to vote. And they were friendlier too.

They very greatly within the state, for that matter. There's a difference between going to the DMV nearest to me, and going to the DMV within the walls of the Pentagon.

[Darmalus]

They very greatly within the state, for that matter. There's a difference between going to the DMV nearest to me, and going to the DMV within the walls of the Pentagon.

Out of curiosity, how was the DMV inside the Pentagon?

My own DMV experience was that the line was always moving forward, the workers were friendly, and if you got an appointment ahead of time, you were immediately take care of at the planned time. If we had a UHC system like that, I would be ecstatic.

[Darth Wong]

People who get so angry about 3 hour wait times in hospital emergency rooms really need to get some perspective. Seriously, do they have any idea what kind of complex service they are asking for, with no appointment ahead of time? Do they realize that these are highly trained professionals, often in short supply, that they are expecting to snap to attention at a moment's notice for every patient, regardless of the severity of his problems?

If they walked into an auto mechanic with no appointment and said "I need service right now", there's a pretty good chance they'd be told to go away and come back tomorrow.

[Samuel]

The DMV takes a long time, but it isn't something people place a high priority on. If people wanted to spend more money, they could open more offices and have more people. They don't because it is a waste- people don't mind the wait as much as they would mind the increase in taxes.

[Darth Wong]

The crux of the problem seems to be the way you look at a situation. Americans seem to judge a situation by looking at a high-end scenario, whereas a more left-leaning person would judge the same situation by looking at a low-end scenario.

So, given a situation where someone has a need for surgery that is not immediately life-threatening, the American says "If I assume that I'm rich or I have a very generous insurance plan, then I'm better off in a system where more money buys better service." The more left-leaning person says "If I assume that I'm not rich or I don't have a generous insurance plan, then I'm better off in a system where service is not tied to how much money you ante up".

They do the same thing when it comes to judging entire nations. They judge nations by how they treat their wealthiest citizens, not how they treat their poorest citizens.

[Oskuro]

^wich is stupid due to the wealthiest citizens being a minority, but of course, a lot of people want to believe that by supporting the wealthy, they will somehow end up being wealthy too.

[ray245]

By the way, didn't Afghanistan and Iraq has some sort of universal health care system provided by the US government? It is laughable that you can give the people in a nation which you invaded a universal health care system but not the people in your own nation.

[The Yosemite Bear]

1. this is old news
2. American Medical Insurance Companies have whole teams of people set up to deny almost all claims for something that will cost them serious money.
3. Getting an insurance company to pay for things that they say they garuntee coverage for is near impossible at times (I'm looking at my $70 a year for a single Hemo-A1C test, which is supposed to be covered free as per my "managing my Diabeties so it doesn't get costly) Which is funny since I can buy a Hemo-A1C kit at a Rite-Aid, or Wallgreens pharmacy with just a perscription for only $40 without using insurance at all)

[JME2]

Yes, it is. Ever hear of the expression "Better red than dead"? There really are people in this country who'd rather be dead than under a "socialist" single payer system.

That's the crux of my aunt's almost fanatical opposition to UHC. It's an opposition that I've never understood as two of her sisters -- including my mother -- had serious financial problems resulting from the health-care costs of cancer treatments in the then-current health care system. I guess -- and again, I love her with all my heart -- her conservative views override all else.

[Broomstick]

And yet.... so many of those die-hard conservatives so opposed to government intervention in healthcare will switch to Medicare at age 65, won't they? And what is Medicare but UHC for people over 65...?

[Darth Wong]

And yet.... so many of those die-hard conservatives so opposed to government intervention in healthcare will switch to Medicare at age 65, won't they? And what is Medicare but UHC for people over 65...?

This is a point I often make. The US already has government health care for the elderly and the impoverished. The only people it does not extend health care to are the working people, which seems perverse.

If universal health care is so awful, why aren't these people lobbying to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid, and let the free market take care of it?

[ray245]

And yet.... so many of those die-hard conservatives so opposed to government intervention in healthcare will switch to Medicare at age 65, won't they? And what is Medicare but UHC for people over 65...?

This is a point I often make. The US already has government health care for the elderly and the impoverished. The only people it does not extend health care to are the working people, which seems perverse.

If universal health care is so awful, why aren't these people lobbying to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid, and let the free market take care of it?

It's easier for them to pretend that the government isn't taking control of the health care industry under Medicare and Medicaid as opposed to the government running it.