By this time, several people had called 911, myself included. It was sheer intinct to call for help. Here was a woman in need of medical assistance. Not immediate medical attention, but still in need nonetheless. The gentleman happened to drag the injured woman to the side of the street which my friend and I stood. When they made it over safely, she told him, "Please don't call the ambulance, I can't afford it."
I'm officially fed up with the American Health Care system. When involved in an accident and you are injured, you're first thought should never be whether or not you can afford help. Health is not a commody to be bartered off or denied to those without money.
-Daniel C. Dennett
The people arguing against proper healthcare provision in the US have their heads jammed firmly up their own arses, and even with insurance they seem incapable of extricating them.
However, no system is free and there are always monetary considerations in all systems.
I recall a train journey from Glasgow to London with two elderly American ladies, who'd had to postpone their flight home from London to the US because, while touring in Scotland, one of them had had a fall and broken her leg. She spent the best part of half an hour praising the NHS, which had been a revelation to her.
-Daniel C. Dennett
But going back to the op, surely both the biker and the car driver that knocked him down, would have (had to have) insurance (not medical specifically, but just insurance) so as to be allowed on the road?
The insurance company would pay any medical bills arising from an accident would they not?
Or is it a case in the US that they only cover material costs?
Not being funny.....Just asking.
The 'communist' reply was outlandish, maybe a residual legacy in some americans from McCarthy and his chums.SoldierForTruth wrote:I can't, for the life of me, understand how a significant world leader such as America can be so far behind the rest of the world society on such a fundamental issue. It's simply mind boggling that anyone would earnestly oppose a truly humane system to take care of one another. I also can't understand how they equate "free" health care with Communism. Even if it was a Communist ideal, so what? If it's a humane system that betters society as a whole, who cares who came up with it?
You'll have a better feel for this but from what I can see the arguments against 'health for all' consist of the,..er... 'communist' angle, i.e something done for the benefit of everyone is unamerican as it doesnt rely on merit (like that really applies elsewhere!) or 'why should I pay for the rest of societys health', otherwise known as 'im alright jack' .
Tsk Tsk Tsk, you'd better be on your best behaviour, Soldier, cause Homeland Security is gonna be looking for you. Or maybe the FBI for unAmerican activities. The words you speak are blasphemy, son.SoldierForTruth wrote:I can't, for the life of me, understand how a significant world leader such as America can be so far behind the rest of the world society on such a fundamental issue. It's simply mind boggling that anyone would earnestly oppose a truly humane system to take care of one another. I also can't understand how they equate "free" health care with Communism. Even if it was a Communist ideal, so what? If it's a humane system that betters society as a whole, who cares who came up with it?
I say that in a joking way but underlying that is something very real to some Americans. Probably most, if not all, conservative americans do think that if you can't afford health care, it's because of your own mismanagement of life. Bad luck, bad circumstances and un-equal opportunity are not even on their radar screens.
Anything that helps to take care of each other, except if done privately, is considered communist. And for anyone to even think that the gov't should help is the utmost in offensiveness. This seems to be a common mode of thought...at least until they are in a pickle and need medical help. Always it seems to take actual experience/need to change minds as Maria's post pointed out.
Only if the person had bodily injury liability. It always comes down to insurance, it seems.Alan C. wrote: The insurance company would pay any medical bills arising from an accident would they not?
Only if the person had bodily injury liability.
So let me get this straight, in the US when you insure your car, truck, motorcycle, the insurance only covers the vehicle and not personal injury?
Is that how it works?
Christ! over here you can write of your car, claim a few grand for the loss of the car, but then figures that run into hundreds of thousands for personal injury.
And I thought America was the home of litigation.
I think you folks are being short changed.