"I'd be dead without Obamacare."

[Openmind]

You can say it but there are articles about it regularly so not buying it.
Cancer outcomes are much worse there mainly due to denials.
And as you are not as young as you once were (as am i), prepare to get told "non" should (and I hope it never does) something serious befall you.

You are so silly! What "articles" are you talking about? Where do they come from? Fake news media? Right wing propaganda?

I am 66, and I had cancer 20 years ago. I am getting excellent care, and in Belgium my doctor recommends a full scanner every year to assure that my cancer doesn't come back. In the two years I have been living here, I have had x-rays, echographs, scanner, a blood test every 2 or 3 months, and all that at very low cost (nothing more than 15 Euros). My husband is also followed very carefully (he is 77, almost 78) and has received a cardiac stress test (with contrast), a neurological test, scanner, physiotherapy, kinesitherapy, and any test he should choose to have.

My 92 year old brother in law just got a gall bladder surgery, a colonoscopy, and is receiving physiotherapy and kinesitherapy weekly. By the way, due to his age, his colonoscopy was done as in-patient, in a private room for 2 nights. For his gold bladder surgery, although it was endoscopic, thus not intrusive, he stayed in the hospital (private room) for 7 days, to assure full recovery, both physically and emotionally.. . his bill? 125 Euros (or about $140).

As I said: YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!

 

[Openmind]

There is tourism and there is criticality. Loads of Americans go to Costa Rico or Thailand to save $$.

This doesn't answer the question. . .Why did the USA not make the top ten?
Which is really a misnomer, as in reality, the USA didn't make the top 20 (since 10 European Countries, not just the 3 listed in the "world" chart scored better than UK. . . which scored better than the US!

 

[Openmind]

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/canada/

52000 cannuks looked elsewhere for care

Another view

http://www.usnews.com/news/best-cou...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care

Is this what you are referring to from the National Post?

"The report, part of a survey of residents in 11 countries sponsored by the U.S.-based Commonwealth Fund, shows 29 per cent of Canadians had to wait four hours or longer before being seen by a practitioner during their most recent emergency department visit.

That’s almost three times the international average of 11 per cent of patients who had to wait that long. Patients in France, Germany and the Netherlands fared the best, with one to four per cent reporting a four-hour-plus wait time."

Doesn't look like it should convince you that the US is better than other Universal health care countries!

 

[PLC1]

There is tourism and there is criticality. Loads of Americans go to Costa Rico or Thailand to save $$.

Correct, and very few come here from other countries. Why would that be?

 

[Openmind]

Another interesting phenomena. No one here seems to bother comparing healthcare in CUBA with the US's healthcare. And yet, it seems that the US (and even other countries who are far ahead of the US in healthcare efficiency and cost/efficiency) could learn A LOT from little Cuba! I just read this article by Forbes, and I find it extremely interesting. . .for those of you who have a fair enough and curious enough mind to take the pain to read it!

Cuba's Surprisingly Cost-Effective Healthcare - Forbes
www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2014/12/22/cuba-cost-effective-healthcare/
Dec 22, 2014 - Cuba has been mysterious to many of us who grew up with knowing the ... One of the key differences between our health care system and that of Cuba is ... it on par with Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Canada.

 

[dogtowner]

This doesn't answer the question. . .Why did the USA not make the top ten?
Which is really a misnomer, as in reality, the USA didn't make the top 20 (since 10 European Countries, not just the 3 listed in the "world" chart scored better than UK. . . which scored better than the US!

Definition silly.

 

[dogtowner]

Correct, and very few come here from other countries. Why would that be?

They're used to hearing no

 

[Openmind]

Definition silly.

So, explain "definition silly."

 

[dogtowner]

So, explain "definition silly."

Already did

 

[Openmind]

Already did

Call me stupid, but I didn't get it.

 

[grumpy]

Bottom line..

Americans are not interested in paying significantly higher income taxes to have ‘government-provided’ healthcare. National health insurance, or single payer, is a dream for many Americans, but if they actually comprehended what it will cost them, and the rest of the taxpayers, they may pause and reconsider.

For example, Britain has a relatively well-regarded universal healthcare system that every citizen pays for through national income tax. The tax rate for income tax and National Health Insurance in the United Kingdom (England) in 2015-16 for all citizens earning between zero and £31,785, considered basic-rate (flat rate) taxpayers, is a whopping 20 percent of their entire income. It is a full 15 percent more than America’s middle class tax rate and would entail a 20 percent tax hike for 45 percent of Americans who pay nothing now.

If a British citizen earns just one pence over that “basic threshold,” their income tax rate jumps to 40 percent up to £150,000. For income over that number the rate is 45 percent; all to cover the National Health plan administered solely by the government with a form of rationing.

For a comparison, and one reason why many Democrats are reticent to go all-in to support enactment of single-payer in America, in 2015, 45 percent of Americans with earned income paid zero income tax. One cannot comprehend how nearly half of the population living in poverty and barely making it and then saddled with a 20 percent tax bill will embrace being poorer to have basic healthcare when they will be unable to eat or pay rent.

Many of those “45-percenters” are in poor Republican states and already complain they are “taxed enough already;” it is just one reason they reliably vote for Republicans pledging to cut taxes, get rid of Medicare and Medicaid, and get government out of the healthcare business.

For middle class Americans, the federal income tax rate stands at about 5.3 percent for tax year 2015. It is as laughable that Americans paying nothing in income taxes will support a 20 percent increase as it is the middle class supporting a 34.7 percent tax hike for universal healthcare; not when they already have healthcare insurance or can buy a “Cadillac” policy and still have money to eat, pay rent, take a vacation, and still afford their 5.3 percent federal income tax bill.....http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02...have-universal-healthcare-like-europeans.html

 

[dogtowner]

Bottom line..

Americans are not interested in paying significantly higher income taxes to have ‘government-provided’ healthcare. National health insurance, or single payer, is a dream for many Americans, but if they actually comprehended what it will cost them, and the rest of the taxpayers, they may pause and reconsider.

For example, Britain has a relatively well-regarded universal healthcare system that every citizen pays for through national income tax. The tax rate for income tax and National Health Insurance in the United Kingdom (England) in 2015-16 for all citizens earning between zero and £31,785, considered basic-rate (flat rate) taxpayers, is a whopping 20 percent of their entire income. It is a full 15 percent more than America’s middle class tax rate and would entail a 20 percent tax hike for 45 percent of Americans who pay nothing now.

If a British citizen earns just one pence over that “basic threshold,” their income tax rate jumps to 40 percent up to £150,000. For income over that number the rate is 45 percent; all to cover the National Health plan administered solely by the government with a form of rationing.

For a comparison, and one reason why many Democrats are reticent to go all-in to support enactment of single-payer in America, in 2015, 45 percent of Americans with earned income paid zero income tax. One cannot comprehend how nearly half of the population living in poverty and barely making it and then saddled with a 20 percent tax bill will embrace being poorer to have basic healthcare when they will be unable to eat or pay rent.

Many of those “45-percenters” are in poor Republican states and already complain they are “taxed enough already;” it is just one reason they reliably vote for Republicans pledging to cut taxes, get rid of Medicare and Medicaid, and get government out of the healthcare business.

For middle class Americans, the federal income tax rate stands at about 5.3 percent for tax year 2015. It is as laughable that Americans paying nothing in income taxes will support a 20 percent increase as it is the middle class supporting a 34.7 percent tax hike for universal healthcare; not when they already have healthcare insurance or can buy a “Cadillac” policy and still have money to eat, pay rent, take a vacation, and still afford their 5.3 percent federal income tax bill.....http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02...have-universal-healthcare-like-europeans.html

If you only just scratch the surface, single payer shows itself to be a significant downgrade.
Which is why the parasite class likes obamacare, it's free.
Ain't vote buying grand ?

 

[The Scotsman]

If a British citizen earns just one pence over that “basic threshold,” their income tax rate jumps to 40 percent up to £150,000.

..... just a clarification though, that tax of 40% is only applicable on the amount over the threshold NOT the whole income.
first £11,000 is tax free
on the amount of income from £11,001 to £43,000 you pay 20%
on the amount of income from £43,001 to £150,000 you pay 40%
anything over this is charged at 45%

 

[grumpy]

..... just a clarification though, that tax of 40% is only applicable on the amount over the threshold NOT the whole income.
first £11,000 is tax free
on the amount of income from £11,001 to £43,000 you pay 20%
on the amount of income from £43,001 to £150,000 you pay 40%
anything over this is charged at 45%

thank you sir..

 

[The Scotsman]

all to cover the National Health plan administered solely by the government with a form of rationing

.....er no!! Where did you get that gem of information from...