Installa Steam
Accedi
|
Lingua
简体中文 (cinese semplificato)
繁體中文 (cinese tradizionale)
日本語 (giapponese)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandese)
Български (bulgaro)
Čeština (ceco)
Dansk (danese)
Deutsch (tedesco)
English (inglese)
Español - España (spagnolo - Spagna)
Español - Latinoamérica (spagnolo dell'America Latina)
Ελληνικά (greco)
Français (francese)
Indonesiano
Magyar (ungherese)
Nederlands (olandese)
Norsk (norvegese)
Polski (polacco)
Português (portoghese - Portogallo)
Português - Brasil (portoghese brasiliano)
Română (rumeno)
Русский (russo)
Suomi (finlandese)
Svenska (svedese)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraino)
Segnala un problema nella traduzione
Regole e linee guida per le discussioni
Segnala questo messaggio
I nclearly said that it ain't perfect by any means.
I'm pointing out YOUR claim that across the board you don't get cutting edge stuff on free healthcare is demosntrably wrong.
You still clearly, cant answer the questions I asked & yet you call it a dodge LOL
The opinion of Universal Healthcare being generic & default is certainly open to interpretation. However I consider it to be that way because not all procedures are freely available through public health care. And if advanced medical technology is called for & not available generically, they come with huge out of pocket expenses, making it far from universal to all.
It seems you may not be fully appreciating the difference between private & public healthcare, as it would be very difficult to argue that they are the same. Universal means the same treatment for all, but it certainly stops when one has top level private health insurance.
Yes it is Universal regardless of insurance or wealth, however the health care they provide, usually does not extend as far as the private system. The public system tends to fall short when it comes to high end advanced medications & procedures. And yes they may also be available through the public system but it comes with huge out of pocket expenses, meaning that it is no longer universal.
What is probably true in many countries is that the public universal healthcare system reserves & charges a portion of all their rooms, facilities & services to the private system. In Australia 25% of our public hospitals are reserved for highly insured private patients, which certainly doesn't sound universal to me.
It creates a gap or a 2 tier system, where it is not the same for all, where universal should mean a single tier with no gap that is the same for all. The public health care system will always aim to be universal, however the entire health care industry is certainly not universal.
Anyway I am tiered of this merry-go-round & will only say that I am happy to respectfully disagree with you. As I dont think you are wrong, just perhaps, only seeing things from your own perspective that is very dismissive of other possible perspectives.
Stop being dishonest.
please demonstrate WHERE I didn't answer your question and why it isn't answering. Because I pointed out you were wrong - you claimed that you CANNOT get top level acess to the best treament in free healthcare.
The mere fact I can in Britain demonstrates you're wrong.
End of.
I'm sorry you can't understand that basic logic, but that's on you.
If you're talking about something else I don't care because that wasn't a point I made. I tackled THAT SINGLE POINT only.
Show me where you answered the question?
Its a simple yes or no question, it is a point, because it demonstrates that Universal Healthcare doesn't pay for all procedures & falls short, becoming generic & default. It's OK if you dont want to answer because we both know it will prove the point of the 2 tier system. What you are not admitting is that even in the UK, not all procedures are freely available through the NIS, or are they?
It is relevant & proves the point by you not wanting or able to answer the question LOL
Its like i'm writing in Martian & reading in Venusian LOL it is extremely amusing & very funny. Crunch I respect your opinion, but I am not wrong either, as you prove that by continually dismissing & ignoring other sensible perspectives.
Anyway old mate, as I said previously I am tiered of this merry-go-round, we are pedalling on the same spot, getting nowhere LOL. its becoming monotonous & lacking any constructive discussion or criticism.
Yeah but it sucks.... at least compared to other countries.
What about, sun bakers, roller skaters, fitness fanatics, gamer's, the incarcerated etc. The problem when we start to get specific is the list could become endless.
That seems to be true as universal healthcare usually doesn't freely provide for all known procedures & medications. There is an alternative, but it comes with massive out of pocket expenses.
Obviously such care is not free, and this is paid either indirectly through taxes, or directly as a forced legislation requiring people to buy insurance.
Universal health care is also common in industralizing countries, though the gap in quality of care between both is significantly larger than in the developed world - not surprising since the economic gap between rich and poor is much larger in everything in such countries.
Note that universal health care institutions and doctors are often still private institutions, but more tightly regulated, and/or receving set public fund amounts. Because of this, universal health care in general tends to be much much cost effective to the public. It also tends to keep emphasis on profits down - private health care workers in general tend to gain a lot more dough private than in public/publicly regulated private care.
The down side is that it makes it highly vulnerable to cost cutting measures. Governments everywhere want to cut costs because it looks good on them, and public services suffer as result.
Some rights should be universal to all citizens, and one such is health care.
Is not free. Is paid by taxes. Of course, if the occasion does arise when you need it, you do not need to worry a bit about the cost of surgery or hospital treatment. Such an occasion is already very stressful due to the disease itself, you do not need an added challenge or stress.
Out of hospital drugs unfortunately are not covered, and require private insurance or out of pocket costs, until you turn out 65 or so anyway and get eligible to significant deductions.
Health care is decent and overall of good quality.
Of course, years of cost cutting measures have made a toll on it, but it still works well, in the grand scheme of things. Of course, you can get better care in many private institutions outside, but of course, you may need to pay top $ for it.
I told you that question was a non sequitur as it's irrelevant to the point I made. So no I can't answer it any more than you should answer how many fish make 5.
Gene may or may not be on the NHS, as I haven't checked.
YOU made the claim that tit wasn't cutting edge on free healthcare, so YOU bring the data to back that up.
I made the claim of "access" that not all advanced medical technology nor all procedures nor all medications are freely available, and yet you still cant understand that fact. We can all see it is relevant & it is only you who continues to pretend that all possible procedures, medications & technologies are available freely or with very little cost in regard to NIS & Universal Healthcare.
Sorry old mate but many people here have already stated that not everything is available freely through public healthcare. I am not going to continue explaining or participating in a discussion that refuses to acknowledge well know established facts.
Do 95% of Americans approve the current healthcare model of America?
Maybe those numbers tell a bigger story - which one has more general problems, overall.
private healthcare: oh you need life-saving medical care? that will be fifty thousand dollars, chuddy :)
dame i wonder which ones better. its a real head scratcher. it really makes me scratch my head while im thinkin casue its such a hard choide to make maaaaaan *scratches head until it bleeds profusely* dame maaaaaaaan i really wonda