# A UHC question **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 28, 2023, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-uhc-question/983318 "2023-04-28T16:42:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2023, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-uhc-question/983318/61 "2023-04-29T15:34:03Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > There is an NHS organisation that investigates what treatments are cost-effective across the whole population, and produces treatment/guidance protocols: but it too is expert-led. Yes, at some point, some decisions have to be made, because there isn’t infinite money available. But there’s a fundamental difference between a decision made by an impartial observer, and one made by a person who stands to profit from one choice, and lose money on another. > **[How Cigna Saves Millions by Having Its Doctors Reject Claims Without Reading...](https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-pxdx-medical-health-insurance-rejection-claims)** > > Internal documents and former company executives reveal how Cigna doctors reject patients’ claims without opening their files. “We literally click and submit,” one former company doctor said. > The rejection of van Terheyden’s claim was typical for Cigna, one of the country’s largest insurers. The company has built a system that allows its doctors to instantly reject a claim on medical grounds without opening the patient file, leaving people with unexpected bills, according to corporate documents and interviews with former Cigna officials. Over a period of two months last year, Cigna doctors denied over 300,000 requests for payments using this method, **spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case** , the documents show. The company has reported it covers or administers health care plans for [18 million people](https://newsroom.thecignagroup.com/2023-2-3-Cigna-Reports-Strong-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2022-Results-Establishes-2023-Guidance-and-Increases-Dividend). That’s an average. So lots were decided faster than this. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2023, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-uhc-question/983318/62 "2023-04-29T16:24:20Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I’ve seen arguments that modest co-pays prevent medical overuse, but those seem to be artificially contrived arguments with no basis in fact. I’d be surprised if anyone can find me a person who visits their doctor just for fun, but it’s an actual fact that there are people who would be discouraged from seeing their doctor because even a small co-pay would be a hardship. It’s absolutely true that small copays prevent people from getting timely care. Many US HMOs eliminated them in an attempt to stop problems before they became serious. But i do know a person who arguably dropped from overuse to appropriate use when a copay was applied. He had a kid with hemophilia. And when there was no copay, he took the kids to the emergency room every time he had a bump or a bleed. After a copay was instituted, he took the kid to a clinic, instead, where a nurse checked the kid out and gave him supplemental factor of he needed it. > [@bob\_2](#): > > That would be NICE: “Evidence-based recommendations developed by independent committees, including professionals and lay members, and consulted on by stakeholders.” In the US, those panels would be beholden to Congress, for good or for ill. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2023, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-uhc-question/983318/63 "2023-04-29T16:58:51Z")
I just got a call from my cardiologist yesterday about some test results, and thinking about it prompted me to throw out a sort of oddball fact here in the interest of helping folks understand UHC in general and the Canadian system in particular. After I was discharged from hospital some years ago following PCI (cardiac stenting) I was set up with regular annual cardiology appointments at their outpatient clinic. I didn’t like it. The facility was huge, crowded, and impersonal. I waited in a queue, first for a technician to run an EKG, then shuffled off for another wait for a stress test that I absolutely hated, then shuffled off again to wait for the cardiologist. I bring this up because I can see the critics of UHC, especially those with access to concierge type medical care, having an “aha!” moment and using it to point to the impersonal evils of “socialized medicine”. But the reality is different. The reality is that the quality of service you get depends entirely on who the service provider is, and under UHC (which lacks any concept of “networks” that providers are in or out of) you can pick whatever provider you prefer. I solved this particular problem by telling my GP that I was unhappy with this arrangement, and she referred me to a different cardiologist that she said I’d likely be happier with. Well! On my first appointment I walked into a club-like luxurious waiting room with comfortable chairs and oil paintings on the walls. Off to the side I could see well-equipped medical testing rooms right on the premises. The doctor was prompt – there was almost no waiting – and his attention has been dedicated and strikes a good balance between tests that I feel are a pointless nuisance and those he feels are important. His approach to medicine is explicitly that of a doctor-patient partnership (and of course, there are no insurance company bureaucrats to come between us). He or one of his assistants always – without fail – calls me about test results and provides recommendations. It’s usually the doctor himself, often in evenings or on weekends. I feel very well looked after. The point is, both of those experiences are part of the exact same health care system, or perhaps more accurately, both part of the same system of publicly funded health care. Citing any particular bad experience as “proof” that a particular health care funding model sucks is usually a false narrative. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2023, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-uhc-question/983318/64 "2023-04-29T17:48:41Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > One great thing about the UHC systems we have in Canada is that there are no out-of-pocket costs for medically necessary health care. That is not strictly true, as prescription drugs would qualify as “medically necessary health care.” The line is sometimes fine: both my dentist and eye doctor have some services they perform at no charge, as medically necessary, but regular tooth cleanings, which can have medically serious consequences if not performed, are not considered medically necessary (at the moment—I think NDP is working on it. Check back in 20 years). ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2023, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-uhc-question/983318/65 "2023-04-29T18:01:46Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > That is not strictly true, as prescription drugs would qualify as “medically necessary health care.” Well, sure, but what I mean is that if a medical procedure is covered (which strictly medically necessary procedures are, though one might quibble about some exclusions) then no extra-billing or co-pay is allowed. Generally speaking, our UHC system tends to nickel-and-dime the patient on small stuff (like eyeglasses) but fully pays for the big stuff (like quadruple bypass heart surgery). Dental care and prescription drugs are current gaps that are gradually being closed. Being of retirement age, neither are big concerns to me. Whether it’s slower metabolism or some other effect of age, I generally tend not to have tooth problems (notwithstanding the one I had to have pulled last week – biggest dental event in at least 30 years!). Similarly, at my age prescription drugs are covered, and for working folks, they’re generally covered (along with dental) by employer supplementary insurance. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2023, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-uhc-question/983318/66 "2023-04-29T18:30:41Z")
I wasn’t trying to quibble, just provide more context for those to the south. My prescriptions, dental, and some of my glasses are covered by my employer-based insurance, as it would be in the US (minus co-pays). (And only “some” because my lenses wind up being too expensive for their allowance.) Everything else is free at the point of service. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2023, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-uhc-question/983318/67 "2023-04-29T18:35:21Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The reality is that the quality of service you get depends entirely on who the service provider is, and under UHC (which lacks any concept of “networks” that providers are in or out of) you can pick whatever provider you prefer. Words and phrases can be defined as one wishes. But some countries that are generally agreed to have universal health care do have competing networks. Israel, for one. If the U.S. gets UHC, it will not look like that in most other UHC countries, simply because there are a wide variety of UHC systems. Here is an idea of what I think might be feasble in the U.S., to get us to UHC, without unlikely near-revolutionary changes: [The Netherlands has universal health insurance — and it’s all private](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/17/21046874/netherlands-universal-health-insurance-private) > [@](#): > > The Netherlands fines people who don’t carry insurance for up to six months and then auto-enrolls them in an insurance plan, with premiums that are about 20 percent higher than they would have paid if they signed up during the regular enrollment period. A small number of people — about 200,000, or around 1 percent of the population — default on their premiums, and their wages are garnished to cover the cost of their insurance. I do understand that in the Netherlands you can go to whatever primary care doctor you wish, if accepting new patients, regardless of your insurer. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2023, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-uhc-question/983318/68 "2023-04-29T18:36:23Z")
I suspect one of the biggest opponents of UHC in the US is probably the food industry, which makes a lot of money selling people shit. They probably have concerns that the government, once healthcare costs become very important to it, will seek prophylaxis to reduce those costs (attempt to make the average person healthier out-of-the-gate), which would likely result in much stricter regulation of the food supply. Other industries, like weapons manufacturers, might also be targeted. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2023, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-uhc-question/983318/69 "2023-04-29T19:07:51Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > The Netherlands has universal health insurance — and it’s all private The Netherlands, along with Switzerland and Germany, have among the highest per-capita health care cost among OECD nations. Plus the US, of course, which is completely off the chart compared to all the others. What do you suppose they all have in common? The US, of course, manages to combine lack of universality with total relegation of health care insurance to the private sector without even a pretext of universal access. > [@eschereal](#): > > suspect one of the biggest opponents of UHC in the US is probably the food industry, which makes a lot of money selling people shit. They probably have concerns that the government, once healthcare costs become very important to it, will seek prophylaxis to reduce those costs Not likely. A bunch of activist nutters tried to make a similar case in Canada, arguing that smokers shouldn’t be covered for demonstrably smoking-related diseases like lung cancer. The government’s response was, essentially, “what don’t you understand about the meaning of the word ‘universal’?”. A fundamental premise of UHC is that the insured pool is the entire population and there is no risk-based discrimination. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2023, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-uhc-question/983318/70 "2023-04-29T19:09:21Z")
And it seems like excise taxes on products that decrease health would be better way of addressing the issue. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2023, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-uhc-question/983318/71 "2023-04-29T20:03:05Z")
And that is what my suggestion was. Not that individuals would be punished directly for making bad decisions but that businesses that promote bad decisions would be regulated heavily. And it is pretty easy for the industries promoting them to convince the people inclined to make bad decisions that the government is/will be infringing on _your freedoms_. Such rhetoric is very effective in US. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2023, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-uhc-question/983318/72 "2023-04-29T20:05:53Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Not that individuals would be punished for making bad decisions but that businesses that promote bad decisions would be regulated heavily. It wouldn’t be _punishment_ for making bad decisions, it would be simply paying what those decisions cost society. If you smoke, then you pay a tax that helps to treat smoking related illness. If you drink soft drinks, you pay a tax that helps treat obesity and diabetes. If you shoot, then you pay a tax that helps pay for gun shot victims. A tax isn’t a punishment, too many people think of it that way. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2023, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-uhc-question/983318/73 "2023-04-29T20:14:04Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > A tax isn’t a punishment, too many people think of it that way. I see it like, if you break someone’s window, you pay to fix it. That’s not a punishment, it’s just a person fixing a problem they caused. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2023, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-uhc-question/983318/74 "2023-04-29T20:33:59Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > And it seems like excise taxes on products that decrease health would be better way of addressing the issue. Which, in the case of tobacco, is certainly happening here. It’s also true of liquor and cannabis, although the latter two are mostly just a cash grab. I mean, someone who has to pay $200 instead of $100 for a bottle of Chateau Lascombes Margaux is not someone at risk of becoming a raging alcoholic but is suddenly deterred by the cost! Yet the gubbermint, in its infinite wisdom,. applies the same markups across the board, with the same sanctimonious justification. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2023, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-uhc-question/983318/75 "2023-04-29T20:50:04Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > Just type “universal health care saving money” into Google and results are endless. Those aren’t what the OP asked. Yes, there would certainly be an _overall net savings._ But the OP was asking about Joe Sixpack, who gets Medical from his employer at a large discount, due to several factors. As a retired fed, my Kaiser is about $150/mo or so for me and the wife. So, yeah, I _think_ Joe would save, but the data posted does not show that. Also note that many of the Medical specialties, such as plastic surgery, would not be covered under most UHC, leading to rich doctors. Not to mention the rich would have specialized insurance and private care. I do not think that just because a Doctor works under UHC, he can’t be liable for mal-practice? > [@Stratocaster](#): > > The net cost for UHC would be tremendously cheaper—the dollars would just flow from different sources. Bernie had it about right: Yes, your taxes may go up, but your net out-of-pocket will go way down. Bernie, with his totally bogus mis-named “Medicare for all” (which had nothing whatsoever to do with Medicare), was totally wrong. Not only that but his crazy idea had no chance of ever passing. (A _real_ “Medicare for all” could work, and could maybe pass) Also, while indeed the overall net cost will go down, I have not seen anything that shows that the average wage earner with employer provided medical would have his net go down. The USA as a whole would pay far less, there would be some nice savings. > [@Son\_of\_a\_Rich](#): > > What could be done about the health care industry? Well, let us take REAL “Medicare for all”. Everyone would get basic health insurance. But there is big bucks in selling Medicare Advantage plans. Not to mention the wealthy would want better medical coverage, faster appointments and care. The Brits are constantly complaining about their UHC plan- slow, hard to get an appt, long waits for certain procedures, etc. > [@anny\_m](#): > > I’m a proponent of Medicare for All, and I think that if it was truly structured as Medicare for everyone, insurers would likely not fight it all that hard. Medicare provides Part A, which pretty much covers only hospitalization, at not addition cost to recipients. Part B, which covers doctors visits and the like, currently costs about $165 per month for most recipients. Right, and there is “Part C and D” ie prescription plans and Advantage plans. I’d assume that REAL Medicare for all would make the charges for part B cheaper or gone. But still plenty of room for other services. > [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > I think most of the responses talked about the lower societal cost of UHC, but your question appeared to be asking about the cost for an individual. And given that an individual usually pays only a fraction of the insurance cost (with the employer covering the rest), it’s _possible_ that an individual might pay more in increased taxes in a UHC world. Yes, the numbers provided so far do not answer the Ops question. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Secondly, once relieved of the burden of paying employees’ health insurance, employers have a huge new potful of money that can be relegated to things like higher salaries,… _It is to laugh._ A big Corp, when faced with large savings from medical insurance will: A- pass those savings along to line employees in the form of higher wages B- pass those savings along to shareholders and bonuses to high level executives. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2023, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-uhc-question/983318/76 "2023-04-29T21:02:04Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > If you drink soft drinks, you pay a tax that helps treat obesity and diabetes. I’ve always wondered about this logic. We do, in fact, have such a tax. I drink diet soda exclusively, which may not be health tonic but doesn’t seem to contribute to obesity and diabetes in quite the same way as sugared soda, and yet I pay the tax, because the way the product is sold, there’s often no way to distinguish the “not healthy” from the “actively unhealthy” versions at the point of sale. Rather than putting the burden on the consumer, wouldn’t it be more effective to increase the costs to make and sell such unhealthy products? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2023, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-uhc-question/983318/77 "2023-04-29T21:09:43Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > But the OP was asking about Joe Sixpack, who gets Medical from his employer at a large discount, due to several factors. I mean, of course, if someone else is paying your insurance, then if it is paid for by your taxes rather than them, then you’d be paying more. It would be the same for anyone who is on their parent’s insurance as well. But, it is a benefit the employer is paying. While you seem to think that the greedy corporations wouldn’t start paying the money that they pay in premiums directly to the employee, many would, as they would like to retain their employees. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Also note that many of the Medical specialties, such as plastic surgery, would not be covered under most UHC, leading to rich doctors. Not to mention the rich would have specialized insurance and private care. And those are not covered under most insurance plans either, not sure the point you are making here. > [@DrDeth](#): > > I do not think that just because a Doctor works under UHC, he can’t be liable for mal-practice? No one said otherwise. However, what was _actually_ said was that, since a large part of the reason that you sue is to cover the healthcare costs incurred by their mistake, such payouts would be substantially smaller, and malpractice insurance would either be less necessary or at least have substantially lower premiums. > [@DrDeth](#): > > The Brits are constantly complaining about their UHC plan- slow, hard to get an appt, long waits for certain procedures, etc. Not really, they aren’t. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, the numbers provided so far do not answer the Ops question. There are far too many factors involved to answer a simple yes or no. It would depend on what kind of UHC we have, it would depend on Joe’s income, job, and benefits. What has been given is information that would allow Joe to measure his situation and get a good idea of where he would come out, but anyone looking for a simple binary answer isn’t going to get one that is useful for anything. > [@DrDeth](#): > > _It is to laugh._ A big Corp, when faced with large savings from medical insurance will: > A- pass those savings along to line employees in the form of higher wages > B- pass those savings along to shareholders and bonuses to high level executives. I mean, that was money they were already allocating to the employees as part of their benefits. Sure, they could be greedy and keep that to themselves, but they also may want to keep employees. Most of those _greedy_ corporations have already decreased their contribution, and have the employee picking up most or all of it already. > **[Health Insurance Rules for Employers - Humana](https://www.humana.com/employer/group-benefits-101/pricing-affordability/4-myths-busted-on-healthcare-rules-small-business)** > > Learn more about the health insurance rules for employers, small businesses and large, that are providing health insurance which apply despite the state of ACA. > [@](#): > > Although the Affordable Care Act (ACA) does not specify a set amount that employers are required to contribute, some insurance carriers or states require employers to cover at least 50 percent of the premium for employee-only coverage. Employers can choose to cover more as a strategy to attract and retain quality employees, and many do. In 2017, the average employer contribution was 82 percent for employee-only coverage.2 If what you are saying is correct, then in any state that doesn’t reacquire employer contribution wouldn’t have any, and no company would be paying over the minimum. As neither of those conditions are met, then your premise is flawed. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2023, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-uhc-question/983318/78 "2023-04-29T21:14:33Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > I drink diet soda exclusively, which may not be health tonic but doesn’t seem to contribute to obesity and diabetes in quite the same way as sugared soda, and yet I pay the tax, because the way the product is sold, there’s often no way to distinguish the “not healthy” from the “actively unhealthy” versions at the point of sale. It seems it shouldn’t be too hard to do so. It is a different product, so shouldn’t be too hard to distinguish. If diet drinks are considered to be healthier than non-diet, then it would be fairly simple to update the tax code to do so. > [@Dr.Drake](#): > > Rather than putting the burden on the consumer, wouldn’t it be more effective to increase the costs to make and sell such unhealthy products? Where do you think that burden is going to end up? It would actually be far easier to set up a tax system that taxes diet coke at one rate and regular coke at another than to set up a system that would get the Coca Cola company to sell them at different prices. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2023, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-uhc-question/983318/79 "2023-04-29T21:18:17Z")
It would, but (1) soda fountains (as in fast food places etc.) wouldn’t work with this. Of course it ends up with the consumer, but if the cost is more directly with the producer, there’s less incentive to produce the harmful product. In any case, it’s a bit of a hijack from the thread topic (my fault for seizing on it!). ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2023, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-uhc-question/983318/80 "2023-04-29T21:26:05Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The Brits are constantly complaining about their UHC plan- slow, hard to get an appt, long waits for certain procedures, etc. But we know that the answer is to raise taxes, which understanding, mysteriously, rarely translates into voting in a government that will do so. And although at the individual level a fair few people manage to go private to get round those difficulties, it never seems to add up to more than about 10% of total medical activity and certainly never leads to serious demands to abandon the basic principle of the NHS. So we soldier (or stumble) on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-uhc-question/983318.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-uhc-question/983318.md?page=5)