To the GWers that live in countries with "socialized" health care

[rockmanj]

I wonder what all you Gotwooters think about the state of your health care. Some of us live in the us, where there is only private care (unless you are really poor, or really old). Some of us live in countries with a national system. Heck, I live in Korea, which has very cheap and effective health care under a nationalised system. Does anyone here have any expreiences, good, bad, or otherwise with either the private system, or public system (RZ, I'm talking to you)?

I for one am deathly afraid to go to the hospital in the US even if i have full coverage. The last time I went to a hospital in the US, it cost me about 1000$ for a few tests and the doctor to tell me that he could find nothing wrong. Another time I had cut my thumb, and it was about 850$ to get it stitched up. a similar thumb accident occurred to me in Korea, and the total cost of treatment was like 60$ co-pay at a private clinic.

[David75]

Seems like for a nation to get a lead in the world and get wealthy on many levels, you need culture and good healthcare.

We have national social insurance in France, it was considered amongst the best in the world in the 80s and 90s I think, but from then they started to cut every damn budgets and the system is imploding.

just a little conference, easy to follow, that is related to the subject:
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html

I recommend that site, they have nice conferences on many subjects. You can always argue bout the contents, what and how something is said, but still that's a lot of interresting material.

[darkshadow]

National insurance here, it use to be private and very cheap social health care. But that system got abolished. Now its one nationwide health insurance. But there are still several companies who offer it. So all of them still have their pro's and cons.

Good thing is though, all of them are forbidden by law to deny anyone, since its required by law that everyone has insurance, this in turn also means its subsidised, the goverment pays about half of your monthly fees, which aren't very high at all ( depends on your package ).

Healthcare is pretty good here.

[Ryllharu]

I'm from the US, have a chronic condition (asthma), and the US system has taken care of me quite well. If you have private insurance through an employer, spouse, or parent (or a lot of money so you can do without) the system is fine. None or minimal waits for largely any service, but it comes at a price: Cost.

I will not deny that our system is broken. My medication costs something like $140 a month if I didn't have insurance. People sue for anything and everything, and doctors overcharge in many cases. In turn, they get screwed over my malpractice insurance agencies. It is a vicious spiral, and I'm still trying to figure out who's fault it really is.

But if you have a decent job with a company that has a decent plan, you're fine. Do a lot of people fall through the cracks, yes, sadly.

However, I am no fan of our Legislature and President that are so dead-set on adopting the model that the rest of the world uses. The Welfare State it will create here will be a disaster for my country, the people, and the generations to come. The system is broken, but copying a system that people will only abuse will not solve the problems with the US system.

Our existing system has too many problems, and those problems have not been dealt with first.

A private system can work fine, but in all honesty, what it comes down to is that I have a job, and I don't want to pay for the people who are not willing to get one. Yes the system has major flaws, yes many people who do work their asses off can't get insurance, but giving them a handout at the expense of people who do is not the solution. Nor is taxing the shit out of the companies that offer people good plans..

/rage

[Board of Command]

Canada has what you would call a socialist health care system, and it has worked reasonably well for the most part. Most of the problems, the biggest being long wait times, can be attributed to the lack of doctors.

[Kraco]

Canada has what you would call a socialist health care system, and it has worked reasonably well for the most part. Most of the problems, the biggest being long wait times, can be attributed to the lack of doctors.

Sounds pretty much like our situation. I don't know any statistics but I assume most people also have a reasonably priced insurance that will grant you the option to go to the private sector should something grievous happen. Obviously the private sector doesn't suffer from the long wait times. Even if you go there for more regular stuff, the government may subsidize the costs partially - a situation that arose probably due to the wait problems of the public sector. The public sector is of high quality otherwise, though.

Personally I have nothing to complain about. I don't mind paying some 12 euros for a meeting with a doctor and paying nothing for the tests. Even if with my largely nonexistent malady and injury record I've had limited use for it in general.

[Sapphire]

A private system can work fine, but in all honesty, what it comes down to is that I have a job, and I don't want to pay for the people who are not willing to get one. Yes the system has major flaws, yes many people who do work their asses off can't get insurance, but giving them a handout at the expense of people who do is not the solution. Nor is taxing the shit out of the companies that offer people good plans..

/rage
^^

Also am afraid of something like THIS (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5955840/Patients-forced-to-live-in-agony-after-NHS-refuses-to-pay-for-painkilling-injections.html) happening. Comments are also a bit scary.

I'm also not liking most of the things I hear from people who support socialized health care. A lot of it is about taking down those damn eeeeeviiil corrupt pharmaceutical companies that provide them with their ritalin and their prozac in the first place. The system is very screwed up yes - you have to show your insurance before you're even seen by a doctor in most hospitals - but blaming successful companies that provide them with their drugs and wanting to take them down doesn't make sense to me. Nor does the government forcing me to have the "cheaper" generic product when I want a choice (because it is now paid for by taxes).

PS - The fact that Obama wants to increase taxes for those who wish to opt-out of the public health care "option" and stick with their insurance companies is also highly disturbing.

[Animeniax]

Do any of these nations that have nationalized healthcare systems have the complex economic and social structure of the US, or anywhere near its population count?

I'm against national healthcare. I've always had healthcare through parents or an employer, which some would say makes me lucky, but I think that's more about hard work than luck. I don't like the idea of my taxes being raised to subsidize others' healthcare programs.

Not to sound callous, but I support eugenics and I think the population needs to be reduced. Some bad healthcare will cull the weak from our herds, much as the predators usually attack the weakened or unworthy of the herd in nature.

edit:
^^

Also am afraid of something like THIS (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5955840/Patients-forced-to-live-in-agony-after-NHS-refuses-to-pay-for-painkilling-injections.html) happening. Comments are also a bit scary. If cutting back on the number of steroid injections could save £33million a year ($55million US), that seems fair. People need to take better care of their backs anyway. Lift with your legs, people, not your lower back.

The example of the old lady at the end is silly. She requires a shot once every 2 years. Surely she could afford the £500 out of pocket for something that is so life altering.


PS - The fact that Obama wants to increase taxes for those who wish to opt-out of the public health care "option" and stick with their insurance companies is also highly disturbing. I think the tax increases will be across the board regardless if you use the system or not. The problem is, what employer will finance a healthcare plan for its employees when it can just dump them off on the public system?

[Sapphire]

Does Britain allow the option for people to pay out of pocket for medication?

As far as I understood the NHS was telling doctors to not perscibe the pain medication for undiagnosed individuals - period - and instead assign treatments like acupuncture. The problem with that is that many diseases that cause chronic pain are difficult to diagnose. That the government is telling doctors not to treat a certain problem to save money sounds no different from the eeeeveeeeeel insurance companies that people are complaining about.

[Uchiha Barles]

Like Animeniax, I've always had decent insurance here in the US. At first from Medicaid, which is goverment subsidized health insurance for low income people, and afterwards through an employers. My health insurance has been pretty good overall, as in, one way or another, my ailments were treated...for the most part

Now, I have to say that I notice some very significant differences in how I was treated when paying for treatment with Medicaid, and when paying for treatment with employer provided health insurance. I have a condition that causes me to have to see a doctor periodically. Or so I thought.When I used employer provided health insurance, a number of tests were run, a discussion with several doctors of varying specialties were involved in devising a treatment regimen for me. "High quality, name brand" medication that were innovative in either chemistry or dispensing method were prescribed to me and paid for. You'd think I had cancer and the doctors were saints who had my best interest at heart. It was very comforting. Also, that treatment was nearly a half year ago, and the recurring condition has not recurred. The doctor told me it very well may never recur.

Fantastic, right? I had previously seen doctors for the same condition when I had Medicaid. I was in and out in 20 minutes, just long enough to run some basic tests like blood pressure and temperature. Nothing pertaining to the condition I was in at the time. He basically told me the condition I had, which was correct, but the medication was ineffective. I returned to him several times letting him know that nothing changed, and he kept throwing medications at me, and it seemed random. I then changed doctors, several times, and the treatment was always the same: dismissive attitude, no tests done, the condition persisting.

That's probably the most radical example of the difference between government subsidized health insurance and private health insurance that I have, but there are others. I've had bones in my hand broken both with medicaid and with private health insurance. The treatment was vastly different also. With medicaid, a cast was used, twice. The physical therapist I went to afterwards told me "That's not how they treat this type of fracture..." the first time I went. It healed up just fine though. With private health insurance, a specialized splint was used and they discussed the injury with me in detail, right down to the measurements (which they didn't when I medicaid). In the case of the broken bones, I went to the same hospital all three times.

Now all this is just a preface for the arguments I hear concerning privatized vs. goverment sponsored health care. The argument I most often hear against private health insurance is that a lot of unnecessary care is dispensed in the name of profit. The argument against government sponsored health care is that in the name of profit, inadequate care is often given. So the solution should be, to take profit out of the equation. The fear is that, should profit be taken out of the equation, no one is to get adequate health care. I should mention, all of the tests that were given to me to treat the "chronic" condition were supposedly covered by Medicaid. I don't know where I stand on the issue. At this point in time, I'm grateful for private insurance. My co-pay is tiny and the care I receive is better in every aspect I can observe than when I use Medicaid. However, insurance is expensive for employers to provide, and while I don't know if the treatment I've received thus far is "wasteful", I have no doubt that a lot of waste does occur. It's consistent with what I already know and believe about the profit motive.

Maybe I'll have a more definitive opinion in the near future.

[Xelbair]

Social health care here - but it sucks. Long wait times, lazy doctors unwilling to take responsibility for healing etc. and thanks to current government, witch does absolutely nothing, it wont change soon.

Oh and it is not cheap ethier - because ZuS(which roughly translates to "Institute of Social Insurances"), institution that takes money for this healthcare, takes 46% of monthly earnings from every working person in the country and they say that they don't have enough money. It is a leftover from communistic system and no one wants to get rid of it, at least from government.

Some employers offer private health care insurance - my dad's one for example - and it is way better here than social one. Nearly no wait times and doctors are much more professional. But even if you have private insurance you still have to pay tax for social health care.

Best system would be mixed health care - if you got none you pay small tax and get social one, and if you got private one you don't have to pay the tax for social one. Each patient would mean gain to the every health care institution therefore they would try to offer better terms, doctors .etc

[darkshadow]

Even though its national health care provided by several companies, taxes haven't really been raised here in awhile. Last time they were raised I don't think anyone really noticed cause taxes are already sky high here and always have been, so people don't know any different.

I don't think even with the old system you were bound to anything, there was always a free choice between what doctor/dentist/hospital you use.

19% value added tax btw.

[Xelbair]

only 19%? its 21% here for most stuff and 7% for things that people buy rarely.

[darkshadow]

Only? wow the difference between 19 and 21 must be incredibly huge.... plus its on everything.

[Assassin]

The first priority of any government should be the well being of the people under its care. The fact that a nationalized health care system that (potentially) would help everyone is being looked down upon simply cuz those who are in a better situation dont want to "pay for the poor people" is sickening really. Especially if those taxes go towards universal coverage, not just select coverage for those below the poverty line.

With all this talk about equality and the american way of life and all that other bullshit, you'd think there would be more emphasis on keeping those living in poverty from suffering a slow and painful life/death.

I dont know the details of Obamas policy, or the ins and outs of the current health care system, but to hinder any progress towards a better overall healthcare system, one that could provide assistance to all in need, is something that is beyond me.

[Animeniax]

That's capitalism for you. The great thing about America is that you can really do as well as your efforts, skills, and perseverance take you. If you choose to give little effort, do little to improve your skills, or give up easily, then tough tookies, you don't get to live the good life which includes proper healthcare.

In countries with elaborate social welfare systems like Sweden, you are better off living off the system than struggling to make it on your own. Happily, it doesn't work quite that way in America, and I'm all for keeping it that way.

Governments should not make it so that part of the people pay for the well being of the rest of the people. I'd prefer to keep my private company healthcare plan than pay into a system and get the same cookie-cutter healthcare as some sorry bastard who has to rely on the public system because he can't find employment with a company that offers health insurance.

[Ryllharu]

The fact that a nationalized health care system that (potentially) would help everyone is being looked down upon simply cuz those who are in a better situation dont want to "pay for the poor people" is sickening really. Especially if those taxes go towards universal coverage, not just select coverage for those below the poverty line.
It's less that people who are well enough off don't want to pay for the "poor people," it's that those "poor people" are not always what they appear to be. Many simply don't even care enough to try and give themselves a better life, as Animeniax said, there are even more that are all too aware that they can take advantage of the systems we have.

The benefits are to get people back on their feet, not let them sit at home and watch television.

I've seen people who don't exactly look impoverished buying lobster and other expensive perishables with foodstamps. The program is meant to assist those who might have difficulty keeping their children fed. If a lot of people exploit that system, what is to make me believe there won't be even more abuse of the healthcare reform?

I suppose it comes down to a philosophy of self-reliance. If I can make my own way, so should others. Does that make all altrusism wrong? Of course not. The problem exists when those who are aided by that altruism begin to depend on it, or worse, take advantage of it.

I have no problem with reforming the system the US has, it is broken. However, reduction of cost is a long-term solution that won't solve the problem instantly, but it is the only way that will fix it correctly. We have the highest per capita cost (not quality of care mind you!) of any country. Why do they believe that the root cause is that not enough are covered?

[Assassin]

so essentially, to punish a few, the majority must suffer. And somehow, no one finds anything wrong with that statement.

I wont deny that people will abuse it, but thats a problem that can and should be addressed after it occurs, rather then avoid the better solution simply to prevent abuse that may happen. And on the topic of abuse, for every one person who's using the loopholes to get a free ride, theres 10 families working double jobs (where there were double jobs to work) in order to support themselves and still not being able to make ends meet. To simply lump them all into this category of "too lazy to do as well as im doing" is to turn a blind eye to their suffering.

As i've said before, i wont deny that universal health care isn't perfect or that it can't be abused or anything of that sort....but when it comes rite down to it, there should be absolutely no reason to let even a single person die or suffer through life when the powers that be have the opportunity to prevent it. And especially when that reason is money, it becomes something that in my mind is despicable, to say the least.

For me the argument is simple: People are suffering, the government has a responsibility to address that suffering, and nothing should get in the way of achieving that goal, especially in a first world country that considers itself a beacon of hope and the leader of the free world.

And thats all i'll say about that.

[David75]

I can understand the selfcentered way of speaking of many on that subject.
With aging may come problems... and even for those efficient at work and their insurance plans. When the time comes, and you really need a help neither your work or your plan can cover, you really like the fact that there's a global plan out there to fill in the blanks.