Nope -- not if you get sick.
Normal countries have universal health care. All developed countries do. The UK has its National Health Service, which is considered by objective observers to be the best health system in the world, as well as the cheapest. Even *Mexico* has universal health care.
Universal healthcare means uniformly universal poor health care for all at lower cost and a better "value." The cost savings come from cutting access to care, paying providers less which leads to less providers and longer waittimes for specialty care, and limiting access to new drugs.
Lack of CT scanners and helicopter care which are commonplace in the U.S. lead to: Natasha Richardson's death in Canada:
Natasha Richardson: Tragic Delays After Her Fatal Fall
Canadian's cross the border due to long wait times for surgery.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/c...tients+south+surgery+Video/9702357/story.html
There are very many cancer drugs that are not available throughout Europe that are common in the U.S. all related to cost.
Comparison of Anticancer Drug Coverage Decisions in the United States and United Kingdom - Research Database, The University of York
The examples are endless. It turns out that you get what you pay. We have a costly system with universal access to all. It is a blantant lie that care isn't universal here. The poor get sick and get the exact same operations and chemotherapy here that the middle and upper classes do. No hospital that I have ever worked at has turned away a sick person or provided substandard care based on $. The hospitals in other countries won't turn you away either, but they won't provided state-of-the-art care to anyone because it isn't covered for anyone.
A common argument against our costly care is poorer outcomes and more health problems but are most of those problems caused by healthcare. Does a doctor make his patient's obese stuffing them with big macs and fries? Does a doctor have pill that replaces exercise? Do health care providers have magic tools to remove illegal drugs from the abusing electorate? Our costs are high because we provide better care to everyone in a populace that won't take care of itself.
And don't worry, the U.S. will soon be a lower cost place with lower quality care based on the ACA and policies restricting access to care that are being made throughout the U.S. on Medicare and Medicaid patients. Be careful what you ask for.
Then there's the uniquely American system of saddling college graduates with immense debts which cannot be discharged even in bankruptcy. So, get sick two years out of college? You're in debt for life.
Don't choose degrees that cost a ton but have no value. You want value in healthcare but not value in education? Free colleges with useless free degrees won't fix people not having money or increase social mobility. A valueless, free degree won't make people be out of debt. We should be encouraging and inspiring our young to acquire valuable degrees that contribute to our growth as a nation on the global scale and valuing education. That starts at home at age 1 not at a free college at age 30+.
Medical schools combine both these problems -- all the best doctors are trained overseas now, becuase you'd have to be crazy or stupid to take on US medical school debt when you can graduate debt-free from nearly any medical school anywhere else in the world.
This comment makes me laugh even though its extremely insulting to my American trained colleagues and myself. Where is your evidence that the best doctors are trained overseas? Don't just listen to talking points.
Actually, nearly everything Bernie is proposing either existed in the US under Eisenhower, or has been established in all of Europe for over 50 years with success. His tax rates on the ultra-rich would be *lower* than Eisenhower's tax rates on the ultra-rich. But of course in the US people refer to such conservative plans as "radical".
Bernie Sanders pays a effective rate of 13% currently. Right now he rights off more than 99% of Americans on his own personal taxes. The modern champion of tax reform utilizes dirty taxation policies better than 99% of us. Do you really think that switching to 90% or even 55% effective rates is something that he would even personally be willing to do?
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/presr...AF0C85257EB4004E9F66/$file/B_Sanders_2014.pdf
Also what as the effective rate back in Eisenhower's days when the tax code let people write off even more? What percentage of American's paid taxes back then? What 50 year European success stories to you speak of? Post-war Germany? Eastern Europe? Spain or Greece economics? True history is important. Not the redacted and politically correct version.
This all seems very off topic, but I certainly didn't start it. Republicans aren't evil even in Montana. Neither are democrats or independents. Americans need to unify and compromise instead of divide and hate. Neither party seems to be good at coming together anymore and thus the hate at places like Superior; hatred stoked by the parties and propagated by their misled sheep. Musk and a few people left like him seem to be able to cross the divides and meet people in the middle on issues of great importance: energy independence and a cleaner Earth. Go Tesla.
