You consider not getting treated preferable to waiting 8.6 weeks?

In the UK that doesn't happen.

Maybe you should experience the NHS before repeating something off the internet as an absolute?
3 weeks on average? whats the longest? maybe I should do the same as you and quote that as the common.
Also that's for follow up treatment mostly and no. I don't consider it a long time. I've probably lived with whatever ailment for a lot longer already. Unless you notice evrything thats wrong with you the second it comes on but most people dont and have had the problems for a while.
Of course in my actual experience I've never had to wait that long to be admitted to the hospital.

You know what you could do if you don't like living to the tail end of averages and stats is choose to go private, choose your insurance provider and your insurance package and be seen within the week.

I hear that's not that much of a possibility in the US unless you're rich.

8.6 weeks is a reasonable waiting time in my opinion.

Depends on the government. The US government is supposed to protect your rights, but not look after you. That's part of the deal in a free country. You are required to provide your efforts (in the form of taxes) to cover your costs for running the country, and then what you do with the rest of your time is up to you, provided you don't infringe on other peoples rights.

Your time belongs to you. THe risk to a free country is there is no one to take care of you, other then you. The benefit is you get to take advantage of your efforts.

The US always tries to remove the risk of a free country, but does so at the expense of removing your freedoms. Some people welcome that. I am one that does not.

I don't want/need anyone to take care of me. I will do that. Just protect my rights, and get the hell out of my way.

Lets go further, Mafoo -

Why is the government merely providing healthcare to us? Of all things, there are issues equally as important -

1. Homelessness. Why doesn't the government ensure that every person has a house to live in, and one that has enough space to ensure everyone has 'breathing room'?
2. Unemployment. Why doesn't the government make sure that there is no unemployment?
3. Food. Why not ensure that every person doesn't starve by forcing all grocers give to people that need the food, rather than put a price on it?

4. Women. I mean, there have to be a lot of single men out there, why can't the government fix singleness, too? I bet it'd make every man in the country happy!

I mean, those are more important than health care, no?

1 and 3 are actually FAR more important then healthcare.

When it comes to health... actual Healthcare isn't nearly as vital as you'd think compaired to such aspects as culture, how you love, stress.

See, that is what I am thinking.

Healthcare is primarily geared towards towards the idea that everyone should be assured a lifespan of 80+ years, and die only of natural causes. Whereas homelessness and food are far more critical to the assurance that the person can at least live a decent lifespan.

That and healthcare is mostly reactive and not preventative in most cases.

While stuff like culture, stress and how you take care of your body are preventitive measures.

I know we'll disagree here... but I do think that the government should find a way to provide food for any citizen who wants very basic government food.  Provide actually food mind you, not things like foodstamps... because of the lessons food banks tell us.

If we replaced national foodstamps with a national foodbanks system where you send food we could probably serve 4-5 times as many people for the same amount of money.

That and it's much harder to abuse.  You can't really sell the government food that anybody could get for free if they wanted.

If government didn't provide any food to people (with food, or food stamps), people in this country would not starve to death.

For a few reasons. One, is if you try, you can feed yourself for almost nothing. And two, charity would make sure no one in this country would starve.

Bad choice of words on my part. Look after your interest would be better. Provide infastructure and services if you don't have them or the ones you have are inefectual whilst letting their be alternatives to encourage competition ad choice.

I think you also have a kinee jerk reaction to "take care of you" So if you get injured you'll "take care of yourself"? Part of running the country means looking after the health and safety of it's population. If a large part of the populous were unhealthy and dying wouldn't you want the gov to do smething about it like you would expect them to "look after you" during a natural diesaster? or are you going to do that with no interference from them?

I heard that a lot of people were pissed off about that during Katrina?

What about education? Are you going to look after yourself with that? I bet you gov had a big hand in your education so why not your health care?

Fact is your government has been holding your hand and looking after you since the day you was born even if you don't want to admit it.