Democrats' Health Care bill has been passed - SCOTUS ruling update

[Danoff]

Glad to see that the US has taken the first steps to joining the first world with regards to healthcare.

It's far from perfect but at least it is the first step in the right direction.

To those of us that understand the problem (too much distance between payment and service), it is obvious that this will only exacerbate the problem.

It's just unbelievable how much healthcare costs in American and with such poor outcomes compared to other western countries.

Most of the "costs" you're talking about go toward researching new medicine that those other western countries then take for granted.

 

[Keef]

It gets expensive keeping the rest of the world alive.

 

[Ophiochus]

Long live America, and every thing this beautiful country does. The rest of the world just lives in our shadow. 13 years old kids do not have an opinion. Quite frankly, anyone under 18 does not have a relevant opinion. Sounds cold, but its the truth. Get over it, I was thirteen and so where you. Wait your turn.

Also, television in any shape is NOT news/politics. It ratings. I hate how young kids (and mindless, opinion-less, talentless adults) watch The Daily show and Steve Colbert and actually listen!!!! THEY ARE COMEDY SHOWS, STOP MAKING YOUR OPINIONS BASED ON IT.

Its to hard to argue politics with under-agers on a forum. For the rest of you hard working people from other countries, Respect America. We do alot of the things for other countries you have no idea about. We (the good Americans) respect you and just ask for some in return. I think we've earned it.

 

[Limey77]

To those of us that understand the problem (too much distance between payment and service), it is obvious that this will only exacerbate the problem.

Most of the "costs" you're talking about go toward researching new medicine that those other western countries then take for granted.

Most of the costs I'm talking about are to do with treatment. Why on earth does a simple set of x-rays cost several thousand dollars in the US and less than $200 in the rest of the world.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting about the rest of the world taking American research for granted. Please elaborate.

As far as I know if you make a breakthrough in medicine you get a 10 year patent to sell the drugs at exorbitant costs to the rest of the world before generic versions can be made.

The crux of the matter is that the larger the combined pool of people paying into insurance funds, the less everyone has to pay.

Now I'm no expert on American insurance practices I am very familiar with the UK's.

 

[nobuffalo]

I don't have to pay less. I have no insurance by choice, now I have to pay more for something I don't want.

Right?

 

[Keef]

Long live America, and every thing this beautiful country does.

Long live everything she was founded upon, but may the lot of her current policies burn in hell.

The rest of the world just lives in our shadow.

MERICA.

13 years old kids do not have an opinion. Quite frankly, anyone under 18 does not have a relevant opinion. Sounds cold, but its the truth. Get over it, I was thirteen and so where you. Wait your turn.

Young children are often more logical than their adult counterparts because they haven't spend decades being indoctrinated by "the system".

I hate how young kids (and mindless, opinion-less, talentless adults) watch The Daily show and Steve Colbert and actually listen!!!! THEY ARE COMEDY SHOWS, STOP MAKING YOUR OPINIONS BASED ON IT.

They're actually a lot more reliable and unbiased than the news media if you're smart enough to understand the joke. If you're not smart enough then they look like comedy shows.

Its to hard to argue politics with under-agers on a forum.

It's even harder to argue with blockheads who are unable to express their thoughts clearly and are unwilling to learn.

For the rest of you hard working people from other countries, Respect America.

Why on earth would anybody respect somebody who doesn't show respect in return? You're not asking for respect, you're asking for appeasement. You went them to submit to whatever devine power you perceive we have.

We do alot of the things for other countries you have no idea about. We (the good Americans) respect you and just ask for some in return. I think we've earned it.

The opinions of the government and the opinions of the people are quite different. People are people no matter where they're from and are often friendly and inviting. It's the governments that make everybody else look bad. People from other countries don't hate Americans, they hate our government. And likewise.

 

[Limey77]

I don't have to pay less. I have no insurance by choice, now I have to pay more for something I don't want.

Right?

But when you get sick or injured, which you will, the costs will be covered. Thereby saving you possibly millions of dollars.

Feel free not to answer, but why on earth in the US would you choose not to have insurance? Seems like a very risky game of Russian Roulette.

As I understand though, you can still choose not to have insurance, there's just a fee to pay for the privilege. $200 I believe. Just like you can choose to file your tax return late, there's just a fee to pay.

 

[Pupik]

Its to hard to argue politics with under-agers on a forum. For the rest of you hard working people from other countries, Respect America. We do alot of the things for other countries you have no idea about. We (the good Americans) respect you and just ask for some in return. I think we've earned it.

With all due respect, nearly all of our members in the Opinions forum have well-and-truly graduated high school, and many have completed college and have successful careers. You're probably thinking of the GT5 forum, of which few would dare to tread in here, although are more than welcome to throw in their two cents. So I would caution against painting with to broad of a brush because our site primarily deals with video games as its basis.

(Frankly, I do get tired of hearing it called Obamacare; that's akin to calling the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...Bush War I, II, and III.)

 

[nobuffalo]

But when you get sick or injured, which you will, the costs will be covered. Thereby saving you possibly millions of dollars.

Feel free not to answer, but why on earth in the US would you choose not to have insurance? Seems like a very risky game of Russian Roulette.

As I understand though, you can still choose not to have insurance, there's just a fee to pay for the privilege. $200 I believe. Just like you can choose to file your tax return late, there's just a fee to pay.

What makes you think when I get sick I will go to the doctor? What makes you think I don't want to cover the costs when I need to? If not I know I will not get the care I need. That's my choice, no one else's.

It is a risk I am currently willing to take. I am 25 with no history of family illness, I choose to spend my money on something else. I minimize the risk of injury. It's my choice. Why should it be someone else's?

So there is a fee, so it costs me more. How is that cheaper for everyone?

 

[Danoff]

Most of the costs I'm talking about are to do with treatment. Why on earth does a simple set of x-rays cost several thousand dollars in the US and less than $200 in the rest of the world.

For one, the machine doing the x-ray may have a patent on it that we pay the patent holder for (and rightfully so), whereas other nations' governments may pass laws preventing our patent holder from getting paid.

But that's a small part of the reason. I have first hand experience with this question.

A while back my wife went in for a quick procedure (no anesthetic). The procedure cost about $800 and required a room at a medical facility. The room rates were about $400 or so for that particular facility for that amount of time (I know because we paid it on other occasions). This particular procedure was covered under insurance, so the procedure got billed to insurance.

The amount for the doctors billed to insurance was $800. The facility fee for the room was $12,000... for a 30 minute procedure.... $12,000 billed to insurance. Amount her insurance paid for the facility fee? $11,000.

We were irate. This is fraud (we told them). There is no way that's an appropriate facility fee. We talked to other doctors who's jaw dropped when we told them what our insurance was billed. We talked to the facility and told them they were ripping off our insurance company. The response? "Why do you care, you don't have to pay it." We contacted the insurance company and told them it was a ridiculous fee. Their response? "Why do you care, you don't have to pay it." The fee stood. My wife's insurance paid $11,000 for a $400 room.

That, in a nutshell, is the problem. The person buying the product is not the person paying directly for the product. Therefore the person buying the product has no incentive to keep costs down, no incentive to shop around, no incentive to determine what tests are really important, and has the best information about what was really done.

Why isn't this a problem in other countries? Because the whole institution is either subsidized by taxpayers (still no incentive to conserve) or simply required by law to keep costs down (still no incentive to conserve). The result is waiting lists, poor service, and almost no research.

Instead, research is done in the country that still enables research organizations to make a profit. The rest of the world strong-arms this research into being sold below cost, but the companies are ok with that as long as someone (the US) pays for it.

 

[Limey77]

What makes you think when I get sick I will go to the doctor? What makes you think I don't want to cover the costs when I need to? If not I know I will not get the care I need. That's my choice, no one else's.

It is a risk I am currently willing to take. I am 25 with no history of family illness, I choose to spend my money on something else. I minimize the risk of injury. It's my choice. Why should it be someone else's?

So there is a fee, so it costs me more. How is that cheaper for everyone?

Let me guess, you consider yourself a Libertarian (although that should be with a lower case l in the US)

So if you get TB, rabies or any other communicable disease you won't go to the doctor? Instead potentially infecting thousands of other people.

Whereas if you had insurance you could get treatment and protect your community. Seems a very easy choice to me.

Being married to an American, having been to university in the US and having lived there I would never consider not having insurance, but it is your choice.

If everyone has insurance or state provided healthcare then there is no incentive not to get treatment. This means that as soon as people realise there's something wrong it can be much more easily treated before it gets to a crisis level and takes up valuable and expensive hospital time.

Unless people who are unwilling to get health insurance are willing to deposit a very large amount of money with their state to cover any potential costs of treating them or other people they infect, then I consider it an incredibly selfish position.

Now I accept this law is far from perfect but I do believe it will lower cost drastically over the next 5-10 years and at the same time increase results.

Surely a win/win situation for anybody.

Don't want to start a huge fight, just voicing my opinion and that of many Americans I know.

The really big problem seems to be the Fox News crowd and their sound bites.

 

[BobK]

Glad to see that the US has taken the first steps to joining the first world with regards to healthcare.

It's far from perfect but at least it is the first step in the right direction.

Actually it's a massive step in the wrong direction.

What it does is [not-a-]tax people who don't have health care. There is something intrinsically wrong with the government saying "You must buy this product or face the penalties".

 

[FoolKiller]

Glad to see that the US has taken the first steps to joining the first world with regards to healthcare.

It's far from perfect but at least it is the first step in the right direction.

Just because something is popular it doesn't make it the right thing.

I'm constantly amazed at all the vitriol in American politics, but had the Republicans actually conceded anything in negotiations the US might actually have achieved UHC.

Um, maybe because we do not want a UHC? And then there is the question as to whether it would be allowed, as it is not a power granted to the federal government in the Constitution.

Here's a shocker of a concept for you: Just because something sounds like a good idea doesn't mean government should do it.

It's just unbelievable how much healthcare costs in American and with such poor outcomes compared to other western countries.

Just look at average hospital costs, life expectancy, cancer survival rates, coronary heart disease rates and it's clear that something needed to be done.

I wonder if any of those rates may have to do with other statistics dealing with lifestyle, such as obesity rates, number of calories consumed, exercise rates, and so forth. Or maybe there is an educational issue. I know locally we have an issue with children getting dental care in rural areas. Free mobile clinics for mothers and children were setup. Less than half who qualified for the free care showed up. The governor had to put the clinics in schools to be sure that the kids were at least getting treatment, but even then parental consent was required so only 80% received the care.

And in case you don't know, dental health has been shown to be directly tied to other forms of health. People don't realize the importance of it and ignore, so they get sick.

Of course, your heart disease statistics also include people like me, who have had it since birth, and my Father's family who have a family history of heart disease. Can we blame our health care system on that? My uncle went from healthy to emergency quadruple bypass surgery in one year.

Most of the costs I'm talking about are to do with treatment. Why on earth does a simple set of x-rays cost several thousand dollars in the US and less than $200 in the rest of the world.

Define simple. I have never seen thousands charged for my regular chest x-rays, but when I had my transplant screening some of those were that costly, but also involved more than me standing against a wall. Some even had different machines used. Without seeing how the statistics you state are derived I can't tell you if it is a direct comparison or explain why one would cost more.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting about the rest of the world taking American research for granted. Please elaborate.

Some countries implement price controls. The cost of research is then forced on those who don't have price controls. You didn't think that you could have federally mandated cheaper care without it having an effect did you?

But I will pay that extra. I may be getting an experimental device implanted in the next year that could improve my quality of life and postpone my need for a transplant. A device developed by a private, American company. And I trust them because they also created my pacemaker/ICD.

As far as I know if you make a breakthrough in medicine you get a 10 year patent to sell the drugs at exorbitant costs to the rest of the world before generic versions can be made.

As of this law, it is 12 years. And I don't see why that is a bad thing. Why do work if someone else can make all the money from it?

Of course, any issue with this ignores the pharmaceutical assistance programs the PHARMA companies offer to the poor.

The crux of the matter is that the larger the combined pool of people paying into insurance funds, the less everyone has to pay.

I didn't realize 270 million was too few. That is the number of insured in the US before the ACA takes affect.

But when you get sick or injured, which you will, the costs will be covered. Thereby saving you possibly millions of dollars.

Feel free not to answer, but why on earth in the US would you choose not to have insurance? Seems like a very risky game of Russian Roulette.

Why would you eat a donut? Why eat deep fried fish and chips? Why drive fast? Why drink alcohol? Why volunteer for military service? Those are all risky activities.

If he pays the bills himself, why do you care? It is not your responsibility or anyone else's.

Better yet, as a person with serious medical issues, why don't I support the ACA? Because its none of the government's gorram business and I respect my fellow citizens enough to not force them to pay for my health issues. They didn't cause it. They shouldn't pay for it.

As I understand though, you can still choose not to have insurance, there's just a fee to pay for the privilege. $200 I believe. Just like you can choose to file your tax return late, there's just a fee to pay.

You can choose not to pay. You will just have to pay.

Don't forget, there is also a fee for having really good insurance too. Explain that. Why will I pay my own fee for taking your insurance advice to its maximum?

Let me guess, you consider yourself a Libertarian (although that should be with a lower case l in the US)

There is a Libertarian party in the US, so some of us can say it with a big L.

So if you get TB, rabies or any other communicable disease you won't go to the doctor? Instead potentially infecting thousands of other people.

Whereas if you had insurance you could get treatment and protect your community. Seems a very easy choice to me.

Read past his first sentence this time and show where he said he wouldn't ever get medical care. It may be a foreign concept, but some people believe in personal responsibility.

Being married to an American, having been to university in the US and having lived there I would never consider not having insurance, but it is your choice.

You finally get it! Well, it was his choice. Now it's not.

If course, you already admitted to not understanding the US insurance system, so your opinion will have very little effect on those making different decisions for their own reasons.

If everyone has insurance or state provided healthcare then there is no incentive not to get treatment. This means that as soon as people realise there's something wrong it can be much more easily treated before it gets to a crisis level and takes up valuable and expensive hospital time.

So then no one cares what the actual cost of care is. And only the best doctors are used until they can't accept patients. At that point you have to ration care or assign doctors. But the you can't choose to seek the best health care.

Unless people who are unwilling to get health insurance are willing to deposit a very large amount of money with their state to cover any potential costs of treating them or other people they infect, then I consider it an incredibly selfish position.

Actually, we have private accounts designed just for that. But this law cuts the maximum amount allowed to be kept in those accounts, so people being responsible have just been forced to only have one option.

Now I accept this law is far from perfect but I do believe it will lower cost drastically over the next 5-10 years and at the same time increase results.

How so? It only grants the lowest quality insurance. Those who can't afford it will still have to pay a lot out if pocket. It isn't giving them the insurance I have. In fact, it is punishing me for having the insurance I have.

Don't want to start a huge fight, just voicing my opinion and that of many Americans I know.

And we are just voicing the opinion of the 52% that oppose this law.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE85S14820120701

The really big problem seems to be the Fox News crowd and their sound bites.

Anyone paying attention realizes we live in a world of sound bites and pointing fingers in only one direction is willful or blind ignorance. Or maybe you missed Fox and CNN both reporting the outcome wring last week or how every single pundit on every news show had a different take on what it meant.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Long live America, and every thing this beautiful country does. The rest of the world just lives in our shadow. 13 years old kids do not have an opinion. Quite frankly, anyone under 18 does not have a relevant opinion. Sounds cold, but its the truth. Get over it, I was thirteen and so where you. Wait your turn.

Also, television in any shape is NOT news/politics. It ratings. I hate how young kids (and mindless, opinion-less, talentless adults) watch The Daily show and Steve Colbert and actually listen!!!! THEY ARE COMEDY SHOWS, STOP MAKING YOUR OPINIONS BASED ON IT.

Its to hard to argue politics with under-agers on a forum. For the rest of you hard working people from other countries, Respect America. We do alot of the things for other countries you have no idea about. We (the good Americans) respect you and just ask for some in return. I think we've earned it.

Yes. Let me just bow down and kiss your feet too. If I'm worthy that is.

 

[Omnis]

I love it when someone makes a post ignoring almost 50 pages of thread. lol.

 

[Pupik]

I love it when someone makes a post ignoring almost 50 pages of thread. lol.

Nobody is going to read 50 continual pages of thread, especially in an opinions forum. Everyone could potentially say the same thing in their own post, and it would still be following the letter and law of the sub-forum, based on a moderator's discretion, of course.

If it was a "How To Do ____" thread with instructions, or an actual timeline-based thread...then there's a problem with that sort of interjection, at least, if done repeatedly.

[/OT meta-planet-peace]

 

[Limey77]

I'm posting from my phone and don't know how to multi quote on it, making it a bit difficult to respond to everyone.

I'm just stating my position, but it seems that most people fail to realise that they are already covering the costs of all of the uninsured people at the moment forcing premiums higher and making more and more money for insurance companies.

I've already stated that I do not believe this act is perfect, in fact far from it, but I do believe that over time people will see the benefits and eventually the US will move to UHC. Although that will take decades.

Why hospitals are legally allowed to charge an insurance company $11,000 dollars for a much cheaper procedure is beyond me, but that is what happens when medicine is a for profit business.

I do understand the constitutional issues with UHC in America but wish that Obama had had the guts early on in his term to try and force it through under the general well being clause and then leave it to the Supreme Court to decide, but that chance is over.

One of the prime purposes with any government should be the well being of the nation and given the dreadful average results for US healthcare something needs to be done.

I certainly would rather pay 2-3% of my income for comprehensive (and better healthcare) with no ability for denial of treatment than spend thousands of dollars each month on health insurance which only makes some major corporation money and currently denies cover to so many for preexisting conditions.

But that's just my opinion and others are welcome to theirs.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Just a quick question. Does "obamacare" require people with little to no income to pay as well?

 

[Omnis]

Nobody is going to read 50 continual pages of thread, especially in an opinions forum. Everyone could potentially say the same thing in their own post, and it would still be following the letter and law of the sub-forum, based on a moderator's discretion, of course.

If it was a "How To Do ____" thread with instructions, or an actual timeline-based thread...then there's a problem with that sort of interjection, at least, if done repeatedly.

[/OT meta-planet-peace]

Oh I know, but it's funny when it happens. Makes for cyclic argumentation.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm posting from my phone and don't know how to multi quote on it, making it a bit difficult to respond to everyone.

There is a small blue arrow to the right of their name, under the date and time of their post. Tapping that opens a drop down menu. On the left is a white check box. Check it. Do this on all the posts you want to reply to and then the arrow on the right you use to reply to thread with will say multi quote reply. Choose that.

I'm just stating my position, but it seems that most people fail to realise that they are already covering the costs of all of the uninsured people at the moment forcing premiums higher and making more and more money for insurance companies.

Actually, no. It has been said many, many, many, many, many times that no one should confuse opposition to this law with acceptance of the status quo. The current setup is broken. Danoff even explained how. But this is not a fix, as all it does is force people to use a broken system.

I've already stated that I do not believe this act is perfect, in fact far from it, but I do believe that over time people will see the benefits and eventually the US will move to UHC. Although that will take decades.

And altering the Constitution to change the Powers of Congress.

Why hospitals are legally allowed to charge an insurance company $11,000 dollars for a much cheaper procedure is beyond me, but that is what happens when medicine is a for profit business.

Because when the government got involved and created HMOs it led to this kind of nonsense. And people defended the changes then as you defend this now. Then the senator who authored the bill that created HMOs (Ted Kennedy) used HMOs as an example of a corrupt system.

I do understand the constitutional issues with UHC in America but wish that Obama had had the guts early on in his term to try and force it through under the general well being clause and then leave it to the Supreme Court to decide, but that chance is over.

It wouldn't have passed Congress and be dead in the water. By the way, the "general welfare" clause has a semicolon at the end and is followed by a list of limits to what can be done. To people who know the Constitution it is known as Article I, Section 8, or the Powers of Congress.

One of the prime purposes with any government should be the well being of the nation and given the dreadful average results for US healthcare something needs to be done.

Further eroding freedom is not that something.

I certainly would rather pay 2-3% of my income for comprehensive (and better healthcare) with no ability for denial of treatment than spend thousands of dollars each month on health insurance which only makes some major corporation money and currently denies cover to so many for preexisting conditions.

Ignoring your bad representation of the current system, you want does not mean everyone should have to. I want free labor. I want a giant sex organ and a billion dollars. I want food and shelter for my family at no cost to me. We will live a lot less time without that than without medical care.

Just a quick question. Does "obamacare" require people with little to no income to pay as well?

No, they get aid, which is why forcing everyone else is necessary.

 

[Encyclopedia]

I see. Thanks for answering.

 

[Limey77]

Foolkiller, thanks for the tip on multi quoting, always good to learn something new.

Whether UHC would have made it through Congress we'll never know but I think it was worth a shot. I know the republicans would have rejected it completely along with some democrats, but right at the start I think Obama might have forced it through. Although as you say, probably not. It would have been a good idea to try, even if you disagree with UHC, because it would have forced a debate on the actual issues rather than rhetoric.

As I've said, I don't think this act is perfect but I do believe it will improve things.

If people who oppose this act are not supporting the current position what are they proposing instead. I'm yet to hear a republican come up with any viable alternative.

And I still fail to see why some sort of UHC wouldn't have been the obvious solution to such a clearly broken system.

I'm happy to learn but so far all I've heard are sound bites and outright lies from the media (NOT referring to people on here).

 

[Danoff]

As I've said, I don't think this act is perfect but I do believe it will improve things.

Since the problem is removing cost from the decision to consume, it will definitely make the situation worse.

If people who oppose this act are not supporting the current position what are they proposing instead. I'm yet to hear a republican come up with any viable alternative.

I love that you're assuming anyone who is not supporting the ACA is a republican. Especially since almost no one in this forum who is against the ACA is actually a republican (including myself).

There have been several excellent posts in this thread about what changes need to be made to the US healthcare system. One of the big ones is to enable healthcare plans that cross state lines. Another is to level the field on tax advantages so that people are less constrained to their employer's plan. We've also talked about tort reform, which is a huge problem.

All of those would pay massive dividends (and not cost anything). But what we need fundamentally is a change in culture. Americans need to think of healthcare as a service that they should save for, shop for, and be willing to pay for at point of service.

 

[FoolKiller]

And I still fail to see why some sort of UHC wouldn't have been the obvious solution to such a clearly broken system.

Primarily because it lays responsibility on everyone even more so than it is now by taking earned money from some and giving it to others without consent of all parties. The opposite of freedom and liberty. If anyone other than the government did the same thing we would call it theft.

This community responsibility places the burden of unhealthy decision making and lifestyles on people who live healthy and safe lifestyles. And what would have been hyperbole five years ago is a real threat today. This community responsibility for unhealthy lifestyles leads to government intrusion into everyday activities, such as eating. There have been bans on the type of fats allowed in restaurant food, some cities are adding taxes to sugary foods, and New York is seeking to ban the sale of a soft drink larger than 16oz. These are intrusions that are unacceptable and only justified by this communal responsibility mindset.

See, UHC is not only a system which lacks freedom in using your own funds, choosing your doctors (can you travel 50 miles or more to see the doctor of your choice without appealing to any authority?) and deciding if your organs are to be harvested at the time of your death, but it is another form of wealth distribution and even opens the door to intrusions of everyday activities in the name of "the greater good."

A UHC is socialism in healthcare. I believe that I should determine my care, my doctors, and take responsibility for my own life. I have been a legal adult for 15 years, and I can put my big boy pants on by myself, wipe my own butt, and take care of my own medical expenses. My life. My responsibility. My choice. Communal ideals say I can't do that. I say that is BS.

Then there are the people on here talking about seeing their doctor one day and getting things like labs or x-rays days later. I see my doctor, get my labs in office and cross the street to get an x-ray that day and am back at work before lunch. Sometimes having corporations with multiple offices and remote workers all over the country is a benefit. Calling my doctor and saying I have a fever and vomiting and being seen in two hours is a wonderful thing. And knowing if my doctor can't I can call hundreds others until one can is liberating.

In short, I oppose a UHC because I support freedom.

 

[Joel]

The analogy I've read (perhaps here?) Is that UHC and current US health insurance, is like if your car insurance plan paid for oil changes, spark plugs, and tires. Costs would be insane, and that's what's happening in health care, universal or not. Everyone's isolated from the true costs, so nobody notices the cost spiraling out of control.

 

[Slash]

This country is going downhill so fast.....

 

[Encyclopedia]

See, UHC is not only a system which lacks freedom in using your own funds, choosing your doctors (can you travel 50 miles or more to see the doctor of your choice without appealing to any authority?) and deciding if your organs are to be harvested at the time of your death, but it is another form of wealth distribution and even opens the door to intrusions of everyday activities in the name of "the greater good."

I'm pretty sure you can decide that for yourself here.

 

[Famine]

I'm pretty sure you can decide that for yourself here.

Sweden has presumed consent - they can take your organs in the event of your death unless you specifically opt out.

Let's hope someone checks that register before they slice into you without your expressed consent.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Sweden has presumed consent - they can take your organs in the event of your death unless you specifically opt out.

Let's hope someone checks that register before they slice into you without your expressed consent.

I wasn't aware of that. Can you give me a source please? I find it strange that I haven't heard of that before. A quick google only pointed towards having to give consent. Urging people to get organ donor cards.

Edit: Found a source now. But your next of kin gets to decide whether or not your organs should be used. If they say no, can't be reached or are in disagreement, no donation will be made.