Anti-Obama Society

The Swiss system is compulsory insurance with optional private complementary insurance. Hardly mostly private.

Funny that you think we should emulate Sweden's system when our media is filled with stories and headlines that say "if we aren't careful, we could wind up as bad as Sweden"

Sweden has rationed health care, with waiting lists for medical appointments and surgery. Americans would never tolerate waiting many months for hip or knee replacement surgery like they do in Sweden.

I've read countless articles on how access to healthcare in Sweden is "third world" (due to long waiting lists) and we should be very careful not to make the same mistakes they did when we reform our system.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA555_Sweden_Health_Care.html

The insurance is paid for privately but for the very poor.

Excuse me if I take the opinion of a US conservative think tank with funding from Insurance Companies on alternative healthcare systems with a pinch of salt.

Meanwhile in most objective studies of healthcare systems, Sweden scores if not the top position, near the top.

You can take it with a pinch of salt if you want, but I think those charts showing how long Swedes had to wait were pretty damning. Those "waiting lists" would never be tolerated in this country.

Funny that you think we should emulate Sweden's system when our media is filled with stories and headlines that say "if we aren't careful, we could wind up as bad as Sweden"

Sweden has rationed health care, with waiting lists for medical appointments and surgery. Americans would never tolerate waiting many months for hip or knee replacement surgery like they do in Sweden.

I've read countless articles on how access to healthcare in Sweden is "third world" (due to long waiting lists) and we should be very careful not to make the same mistakes they did when we reform our system.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA555_Sweden_Health_Care.html

Actually I'll just add to that - the article keeps on referring to rationing of care in Sweden with the implication being that the US doesn't.

Healthcare is a scarce resource that everyone needs - it is rationed in any country one way or another. In the US it just so happens that it's rationed by ability to pay rather than need or waiting times.

If waiting times are what you get to eliminating rationing in favour of those that can pay, that seems like a reasonable trade-off to me. No doubt you won't agree.

Since you like waiting lists so much (hardly the best marker of a good medical system in my book but there you go...) you should try reading this report

Particularly look at pg20 - you can see here that the US waiting times is actually worse than all the other countries compared (including the UK) except for Canada. The elective surgery/specialist waiting times on pgs 24/25 are admittedly better, but the US is still beaten by Germany - a country with a similar system that Obama is proposing.

If you have the time, read the whole thing - there's not many stats in there are particularly flattering to the US.

I read the whole thing. It's findings are based on subjective data, which is not really good for much. Most people only have experience with their own system and don't know how good or bad they have it.

Let me walk you though a recent experience I had at a US hospital and you tell me if such a discussion would ever occur in another country.

Doctor: So, you're knee hurts when I bent it like this?
Me: Yes
Doctor: I'll have to do an MRI to see what's going on inside...are you busy in an hour and 1/2?
Me: I could go have lunch and come back
Doctor: Ok, when you come back, get an MRI done on the first floor

In Canada, I'd be in agony for months and probably drive across the border for proper care.

For the people who are insured and get instant treatment, none of us are willing to compromise our care to get the legitimately uninsured 12 million (the 45 million number is a lie) covered by Obamacare. .

I won't accept waiting lists or rationing to extend coverage to those who have no insurance because I think we can have our cake and eat it too. There are ways to fix the existing system, get those 12 million covered, and not lower the quality of the other 288 million. I think there are private-sector based solutions that could "fix" the existing system and make coverage available to those 12 million people.

I read the whole thing. It's findings are based on subjective data, which is not really good for much. Most people only have experience with their own system and don't know how good or bad they have it.

Let me walk you though a recent experience I had at a US hospital and you tell me if such a discussion would ever occur in another country.

Doctor: So, you're knee hurts when I bent it like this?
Me: Yes
Doctor: I'll have to do an MRI to see what's going on inside...are you busy in an hour and 1/2?
Me: I could go have lunch and come back
Doctor: Ok, when you come back, get an MRI done on the first floor

In Canada, I'd be in agony for months and probably drive across the border for proper care.

D-Day, my point was, at least I've used the healthcare systems of many different countries. That's more than most people here can say. Full of opinions, but no useful first hand experience

Because the plural of anecdotes is data....

We may be 'full of opinions' but we've also got well-researched data that backs up our opinions. What have you got to back up your 'first hand experience'.

If Obama creates and maintains a successful state healthcare system he will be remembered as the greatest American President since FDR.

FDR was one of the worst presidents in US history. He turned what should have been a fairly routine downturn into a prolonged depression.