Universal healthcare like in the UK, Canada and Australia has it’s good and bad. You don’t hear stories in Canada and Australia of people have to sale their home or car to pay for cancer treatment or other treatment.
You don’t hear stories of CT scan bill costing $10,000 some even $15,000 and you don’t hear stories of surgeries costing hundreds and hundreds of dollars.
You don’t hear stories of homeless people and poor people being kicked out onto the street because they could not pay.
The bad side is really long ER wait times and long wait to see specialist and long wait for tests to be done.
And really bad stories of 6 month waiting list for knee or hip surgery is unheard of in the US.
I don’t really have any opinion on the merits or demerits of one type of healthcare v the other. I just find the concept of having to pay out of pocket for certain types of services (and these are services, even if they are provided by contractors) to be unbelievable. Especially for the richest country in the world.
Preventative care is cheap, sometimes provided free by your provider. Immunizations for instance are provided free (to me anyway). Nurses clinics for blood pressure check, wound dressing, things like that are also free. It varies by provider.
Since the question in the OP has long since been answered, and this has become a debate about health care in general, let’s move this over to Great Debates.
It may be unheard of because many who need it in the USA can’t even get on a waiting list because they can’t afford it. Here, anyone who needs it will get it though there may be a wait. The ones who need it the most will get fast-tracked.
If you have a spare £10k you can bypass the NHS altogether and pay out of pocket and have it done next week. How much would that cost in the USA?
OK, I just checked a “take home calculator”. In the UK, my net pay would be about 7000 UK pounds or $9100* less *than in the USA. My Health insurance cost for me and my spouse is $120/month after employer contributions. My Co-pay is $15 per visit for most things.
[yI]ou pay a lot out of every paycheck (far more than I do and I earn a very good wage)*
My reply: OK, I just checked a “take home calculator”. In the UK, my net pay would be about 7000 UK pounds or $9100 less than in the USA. My Health insurance cost for me and my spouse is $120/month after employer contributions. So, I pay less than you do per paycheck. You pay much higher taxes than I do, my healthcare payments are much lower than your higher taxes.
*and get healthcare that is limited, adversarial and still leaves you on the hook for 10% at best. *
My Reply: My Co-pay is $15 per visit for most things. Thus, my healthcare is not limited, adversarial nor am i on the hook for 10%.
There is no wait time in US to see specialist unless you are in town or in the country** or some small city**. You can see specialist in two to three days a weak at the most.
It is unheard of waiting a month or two month to see a specialist.
Same thing for surgeries booked in the US by the doctor in two to three days a weak at the most.
Waiting a month or two month for surgeries is unheard.
I think he is trying say is there is no country in world that spend most of GDP on health care yet the US healthcare is a privilege not a right. Yet other countries in world don’t spend any where close to US on health care yet they have universal healthcare even if it is not any where close to US quality healthcare. Where critics say if those countries spend any where close to US on health care their would be no wait time.
So him from the UK things it is really funny the US healthcare is a privilege not a right and you have to pay for every thing in the US yet the US spends very large amount every year going into health care but no universal healthcare and in the US healthcare is a privilege not a right.
Many people don’t have family doctors and forced to go to ER for cuts, cold, flu, sprains, broken ankle, skin rashes. You need stitches or cast so on.
There is a shortage of doctors both ER doctors and family doctors. And people cannot find doctors and some that do have family doctors is long wait time to see their family doctor.
I have to emphatically disagree. This is why generalized health care debates are becoming so frustrating that I’m inclined to stay out of them. According to the OECD, the UK spends about $3235 per capita on health care. Canada spends $4429. The US spends $9523. That’s not just slightly more – it’s several multiples more! And in speaking to my many friends and relatives in the US, it’s abundantly clear where this money is going: to a vast disorganized patchwork of private insurers who require mountains of paperwork to empower them to meddle in the doctor-patient relationship to minimize medical outlays and maximize profit, and to the entire system of health care delivery that has no effective means of cost control.
You cannot possibly try to argue that you’re financially better off than your UK or Canadian counterpart because of private health insurance – the math just doesn’t work. You may be financially better off for other reasons, despite private health insurance, but certainly not because of it. You’ve essentially taken the math and combined it with several incorrect assumptions and put the whole thing through a meat grinder in order to arrive at preconceived and incorrect conclusions.
You seem to be making the assumption that the higher taxes or lower income in the UK are solely due to health care costs. They are not. Not by a long shot. Both the UK and Canada, just for one example, have vastly greater non-health social spending than the US, because that’s the kind of society they’ve chosen to have. Canada, for instance, spends two to three times as much as the US as percentage of the GDP on non-health social programs like social services, income security, and housing.
You also cite this irrelevant mystery number of $120 a month. Look at the costs given above. On average, that’s not within a country mile of paying the real average costs of health care, and you can’t just ignore your employer contributions as if they were magic or money from trees. For one thing, that’s money that you’re not getting because it’s going to health insurers instead, and for another, what if you had no employer? What if you were self-employed, or the economy tanked and people lost their jobs, or someone lost their job at an older age where they were more or less unemployable just at the time that they started needing health care the most? What happens after you retire? If you think Medicare is sufficient, prepare yourself for a shock.
And regarding point #2, you say your co-pay is $15 “for most things”? What about annual deductibles? Or what if you were hospitalized and needed heart surgery and the total bill came to $150,000, which isn’t all that unusual. Hospitalizations and surgeries are frequently very much more. Would your co-pay still be $15? Not only would it be substantial, but you might end up fighting the insurance company to get any coverage at all. These are precisely the kinds of things that make health care costs the #1 cause of personal bankruptcies in the US, and most of those people were insured. It wasn’t $15 that bankrupted them, or forced them to sell their houses and lose their life savings.
When my city instituted EMS billing about ten years ago, the main argument was that it’s “free money.” They said that most people were paying for ambulance service through their health insurance premiums whether the city charged or not (health insurance isn’t cheaper if you live in a city that doesn’t charge), so the city might as well send a bill and get their piece of the pie.
Some of those waiting times have to do with how is the waiting time calculated.
My mother sees a gastroenterologist every six months. Waiting times are calculated as “time between when the appointment is requested and when it takes place”.
If the gastro sets the new appointment herself as it usually happens under the current procedure, that is counted as a waiting time of six months.
If my mother calls asking for the appointment to be pushed back because she’ll be out of town, and it gets moved to the following month, that is counted as a waiting time of seven months.
But that is a completely different situation from how most people interpret it, which seems to be along the lines of “she had to wait seven months to be seen from when she would have liked to be seen”.
My experience going to the ER in Spain has been that unless you get triaged as “must be seen NOW”, you wait in the general waiting room area until someone will see you; waiting time is counted as “time between when your information is jotted down and when you’re told ‘the doctor/nurse will see you know’”. My experience going to the ER in the US was that the patient got triaged as “must be seen soon”, placed in one of those cubicles with the shower curtains, and then waited until the doctor came. I don’t know whether the time in the cubicle was counted as part of the waiting time or it was not.
I wouldn’t call it a dystopian nightmare in Canada, within the context of our health system and our other social supports.
Starting point is that our Medicare system pays for medical services, which as a good rule of thumb means medical services provided by a doctor or in a hospital. Medicare doesn’t cover everything health related.
One of the boundaries drawn is getting to the hospital. That’s not part of the Medicare system under the Canada Health Act, so the provinces are free to deal with it as they see fit.
But that doesn’t mean you’re thrown directly to the capitalist EMT wolves. (“That’s a joke son, a joke!”). Ambulance services are normally an ancillary service provided by the health system, but at a cost to the user. For instance, I just checked the web-page for my local health authority, and the cost for an ambulance within the city is C$325. Outside the city, there’s an additional mileage charge of C$2.30 per kilometer.
So how does that get paid?
Well, you can get supplementary insurance from a private carrier, like Blue Cross. Or you can just self-insure. And if you’re on Social Assistance, that would be one of the things that gets covered.
That means the ones who are hardest hit by ambulance fees are the working poor: earn enough not to be on Social Assistance, but not enough to be able to buy supplementary insurance. However, I would expect the health authority to have some discretion to waive fees in case of hardship. That type of discretion is common with government programs here.