seasiren wrote:No, you do get treatment. However after the emergency room you get state care which is a major joke!
Quite true, which helps those not in the USA know a bit more about how it really works here. Nobody can be denied treatment if they have a medical emergency - you will be taken care of. HOWEVER....the quality of care post-emergency will be minimal at best (once they deem you well enough, you're kicked out of the hospital), and if you don't have insurance, then be prepared to be socked with bills that might be more than a mortgage payment. I have a distant relative who had an emergency quadruple bypass due to a heart attack - he had no insurance, and the cost came out to $75k. He was broke, couldn't pay it, and didn't pay it, and somehow he managed to slip through the cracks as about 10 years later, they stopped calling asking for their money. One of the lucky ones in that regard, I suppose
I seem to hear all too often from non-Americans that they are under the impression that you could be bleeding to death from a gunshot wound in front of the ER, and that if you didn't have insurance you'd be left to die. Not at all true, but still, it's a terribly bad system if you can't afford insurance.
seasiren wrote:From what I have seen, most Americans are not opposed to public health care at all. They are concerned about how it will be run.... let's face it, they haven't been very clear on it and the people at the top are less then trustworthy in interpretation.
Again, I think you hit it on the nose. Many Americans WANT a public option as well as a private one, but with the current economic state, they're also worried about how it'll impact their bottom line financially for what it could relate to in new taxation. Considering how things are now, how we keep pouring billions into one boondoggle after another, it's mystifying the general public how a nearly $1 trillion plan can be put into effect under massive national debt WITHOUT requiring additional taxation (which our president has said "will not happen"), and without sacrificing the current level of care for those who do have insurance. The plans haven't been made crystal clear, they're quite complex, and that's not satisfactory to many people, which is why it's always a hot button issue for debate.
IF (and I do mean a big "IF") it can actually be done without screwing things up royally and actually improve care for people, it'll be a great thing. However, as someone so eloquently stated to me this week, "The US government could fuck up a handjob" (pardon my language to anyone who may take offense
), so let's say that there's not a huge amount of faith in things working out as well as the powers that be claim they are going to. Only time will tell where this is going to end up.
