could be. but then you are saying you'd rather be european because you are healthier, not because healthcare is better. there is a difference and the confusion of the two is unfortunate.
I do appreciate the difference. My point is that (in the UK, at least, I can't speak for other countries) the NHS does invest heavily in preventative care, i.e. we are healthier precisely because our healthcare is better.
furthermore, I'm not sure what primary care doctor prevents you from smoking or getting fat.
An NHS GP will help you to quit smoking or lose weight, and the NHS also run public awareness campaigns, although I'll grant that the latter isn't primary care.
Many Americans (keep in mind, 85% have insurance and going to a primary care doctor isn't expensive compared to insurance or the taxes Europeans pay) already have great access to primary care doctors.
Taxes are taxes, you pay them regardless. NHS healthcare is still 100% free at the point of use, for 100% of the population. There is no financial incentive for patients to not seek treatment early.
Oh, and don't expect me to simply take your word for it that we pay more for our primary care than you, but my point here is that it wouldn't matter even if we did.
For example, at my work place, the low deductible plan has a 15 dollar copay for me to go to a primary care doctor and the high deductible plan pays 100% of the cost.
I have to say, the idea of depending on your employer for such things does not sit well with me. The low-paid and the unemployed seem likely to be put at a disadvantage by such a scheme. It also seems bizarre to link employment and healthcare in this manner; what has one got to do with the other?
and no, I'm not for doctors leaving people to die. that is just a stupid comment.
Yes, I apologize for that, it was a cheap shot. It's clear now that you were only objecting to one particular means of ensuring people aren't left to die
But what I'd rather see is if society actually wants to provide healthcare to the poor, then to share that very specific burden (a la Medicaid) rather than force 100% of the burden on hospitals.
Of course, that objection only makes sense within the context of a privatised healthcare system.
That's also a rather interesting 'if'. I would have thought that any reasonably compassionate society would want to provide healthcare to those that need it, and I see no reason why a typical American would be less compassionate than a typical European. We're all human, after all.
Sure, the old system maybe wasn't perfect but the idea of letting 100% of the burden fall on your local hospital and the idea that the emergency room is free just creates perverse incentives and can really put an unfair burden on hospitals that are open in lower income areas where offsetting business from the rest of the community isn't there.
What kind of perverse incentives did you have in mind? Driving hospitals away from poor areas? Because that would seem to disappear totally in a state system where the primary objective is healthcare, rather than profit.
