Offensive Squid

@Sheila

Regarding the healthcare. It varies from province to province a bit in what's covered, but the general guideline is "if it's medically necessary, it's covered." And by covered, I mean covered by the government program we pay into via taxes. Considering the circumstance/whats described, it's likely that his entire stay will be covered. It doesn't always cover physiotherapy, but, again with the circumstances I'd assume it would be, or at least partially would be. Skin grafts are also sometimes considered cosmetic, but I doubt it in this case. I'm basing my assumptions that they would be, on the second general guideline, which is "anything provided by a hostpital/in a hospital, or determined as necessary by a physician, is covered".

If he'd paid into additional private coverage, which any individual can do, there probably wouldn't be much question on any bits and pieces being covered. They aren't allowed to do a lot of the things they do in the US, sometimes you have to poke them a bit, but they can't suddenly drop coverage and other things.

Just as a sidenote, this is why Canadians usually think those in the US are batshit crazy when it comes to healthcare/oppose the reform of it. Our options don't come down to "die" or "go bankrupt". We also pay less than half per capita what the US does and have significantly longer average lifespans. No developed country pays anywhere near as much, let alone for so little, last time I looked into it. =P Though been reading recently how polls always show a very higher percentage of those in the US don't realise that their medicare is a government program, so maybe it's just an education issue.

Actually, none of this is assumed. Generalisation are not abnormal in conversation (which is what a forum amounts to), so I'm not sure why you've responded this way… but if I have to, I'll guess I'll explain it.

To break it down, in case it's unclear:

"Batshit crazy" – I've only ever seen this used in humorous/friendly context, usually referring to extreme action/state, one which is strange or unfathomable, which is how I intended it, not as an insult. Why would I be purposefully negative in my reply? 

"this is why Canadians usually think… Batshit crazy" – Generalisation of a population, in this case Canadians, who are more likely than not, to think something is unfathomable.

"those in the US" – Another generalisation of a population, this time referring to the USA.

"when it comes to healthcare/oppose the reform of it." – Referencing the current state of healthcare and that reform of it, is opposed.

To pull it together: As a generalisation, Canadians find the existence of healthcare in it's current state and the opposite to reform in it by the generalised population of the US, unfathomable.

Some notes:

The size of a population is not relevant. Nations develop general cultures, they have media, government policies, etc, and these are what define the view of a nation. There are trends which occur which span across any cultural diversity, no society I'm aware of is somehow exempt. In this one subject, that of healthcare, the US has displayed certain rhetoric for decades (including attempts to influence our local policy), very often citing Canada in comparison. The recent political events involving healthcare, from the difficulty in passing reform, to the immediate voting in of a group who's primary promise was to repeal it, as well as the views of the most watched media, etc, etc, give a view of the general US culture regarding healthcare. In conversation, the requirement to exempt general statements about something like a nation are not required, because it's generally understood that an assumption that every single individual in a nation would follow that trend, would be absurd.

While I'm glad your father managed to do so, that is anecdotal. There are a number of research studies into the population on this subject, including the largest cross border study done in history, and they show that cost is a major factor in whether an individual will seek medical attention or not. The research showed that not only will those in the US choose to delay or not seek medical attention for ailments due to cost, but that this could often lead to an increased risk of death or treatments coming too late. It also showed that overall and on a personal basis, the debt and consequences of seeking treatment were severe and that some individuals will choose not to have treatment rather than incur the cost. So again, I'm glad your personal situation did not come to that, but the generalisation was based on evidence.

I don't actually think Americans are stupid, I actually used this example because it's just part of my personal wondering/consideration of explanation on how a population can make decisions which seem contrary to their interests. Lack of information/distorted information would seem a likely cause. Or to say it another way, ignorance and stupidity are separate things, the former of which is blameless. As for polls rigged for punditry/humor, the results I've seen were published in reputable media outlets (I believe the New York Times was one). It's true that polls are a very limited in their scope, but I have to assume that the information has some basis because of the source, and since I think the lowest number I've seen in those polls was 39% on that subject (and coupled with the voting trend, it would seem to make some sense). Your own experience/anecdotal evidence is something to consider, certainly, but would be far removed even from the limited scope of a poll.

As for guns, the US does have the largest per capita rate of firearm ownership in the world, certainly, but that doesn't give evidence for wide distribution, so I'm not sure why anyone would claim that. The distribution, from what I've seen, seems heavily weighted by state culture/laws pertaining to ownership. Of the friends/family I have in the US, 89% certainly, don't carry firearms =P

And I'm not sure why you included the last sentence, since on an individual level that applies to any nation, it's true certainly, but doesn't change that there are always national trends. 

Anyway, I hope that clarified what I intended/the basis for it. (I ran through this pretty quickly, apologies for spelling/grammar issues)

Post edited 2:51 pm – February 18, 2011 by The Echo Inside

It's not uncommon for phrases to have different connotations/uses in different cultures, even between cities, let alone countries. In future, it might be better to ask for clarification or give the benefit of the doubt, rather than make negative assumptions. Especially as in this case, you even say how your usage/connotation understanding wouldn't fit the case (the wouldn't use it to their face part).

As for the generalisation, I'm afraid I'm not sure I can explain it further, I've never had to before. But, a generalisation includes the understanding (as I mentioned before) that the subject is not considered as a single entity/block, it inherently gives the understandng of divisions. And as for qualifications, feel free to doubt, but I do take a bit of amusement with your mention of ex cathedra. Since you spoke with such authority on what you believed my meaning to be, and continue to do so, even when I've tried to clarify.

And just to try and clarify again, the data I'm referring to found the trend occurred in those with insurance as well, reasoning for it including the potential for increased premiums, deductibles, etc, etc.

And just to jump in with the answer the question of working class, I'm going to assume the standard definitions are being used. Working class is usually classified a few different ways, "someone who engages primarily in physical labour for their means of employment", "someone who does not hold a supervisory position" and "someone who's income falls below a certain threshold." It's not exactly a clear division, and is used in a few different ways, but that usually covers the basics. According to the most recent data I can find, the most objective answer (census based, 2008) to the last criteria for income would be a household income of below $37,675. Middle class being defined as $37,675 to $75,350. Though self identification of "class" will of course, vary. About 2/5 of the population fall into the middle class and 1/5 into the upper class by the income defintiion. The poverty line is between $16,530 and $21,203 for family household incomes.