Free healthcare

[Hermit Philosopher]

Also, some very expensive procedures are not supported by many of these state health systems. Costly new treatments have to be subjected to a cost-effectiveness evaluation before they are offered. But this is at the margin, for things such as highly exotic cancer drugs, or expensive therapies whose effectiveness is not clearly proven.

We can choose to go privately in the U.K. if we wish to though. And, at least before we left the EU, we also had the choice to opt for private treatment available elsewhere in Europe if we found it better, quicker or just less expensive.

 

[Estro Felino]

That's what I would have expected.

I mention it because some people on the Left criticise the existence of private medicine, accusing it of allowing "queue-jumping" for wealthy people. Which of course it does. But overall everyone wins because it takes some pressure off the NHS and, crucially, provides an incentive for capable people to put in the long hours needed to train as a consultant. (I myself sometimes get a private consultation, for something like an eye problem or a bad knee. It can cost me £120 a time, but I get a quick answer and just getting my car serviced costs that much these days.)

Private healthcare has to exist.
Because professionals have the right to be rewarded for their work in their studio.

 

[Twilight Hue]

For instance, we pay lots of taxes, it is true. But at least the State gives us services in return.
Americans pay taxes...but where are services?


We have national taxes, municipial taxes, regional taxes ....

Those go back into municipal unions to help pay for free boob jobs and unrealistically extended service contracts for their buddies who helped them get elected.

Good ole' fashion cronyism.

 

[exchemist]

Umm... yeah, I can't explain it.
We have different private companies offering differ bundles. If you belong to a larger company you can usually get a better deal, more coverage for cheaper as the insurance company spreads their risk over a greater number of people.
If you go to a hospital they are required to treat you, but then you can end up owing tens of thousands of dollars without insurance. Also you get random bills for doctors from the other side of the country saying they were involved in your care, though you've never saw or heard of them before. Generally you don't have to pay but it really hurts your credit rating if you don't.

My wife worked at a hospital for a while, and whatever the insurance didn't cover, the hospital did. So people who work at hospitals get a pretty good deal. I now have coverage but with all these doctors I never see billing me I can end up owing thousands.

I finally got all of my medical bills pay off finally. Now I avoid going to the doctor mainly to avoid these bills from random doctors around the country.
There is a person who has a job of deciphering the billing codes to send to the various insurance agencies.

When I apply through my company for insurance I have 3 plans I can choose from, HMO health management something which covers the most and cost the most. PPO, Personal physician and catastrophic care which is cheapest but you are on your own for the first $2500-$5000 in medical expenses.

Other people/companies have different plans. Some of the more executive folks get better plans I suspect as a bribe since they select which insurance company to go with.

It's all pretty eclectic. One has to shop for their doctor as some are really good, others are not. Also some doctors won't accept some insurance plans as they have trouble getting the insurance companies to pay.

I have a distant relative who makes a lot of money going to various companies getting them to use her insurance company. Pretty lucrative job selling insurance to private companies.

So I can kind of tell you about it, explain it, no.

I vividly recall the vistas of unwanted "choice" I was presented with, when I worked for Shell in the USA for a couple of years.

I was sent a book, the size of a smallish phone directory, with all the options for health insurance. I had no idea what level of cover was sensible. Nor did I wish to devote hours of study to choosing something on which I was so il-equipped to decide. Also, it occurred to me that since this came with my employment, if I were to leave, or be fired, I would have no cover at all! What a dreadful system.

And yet, a lot of otherwise quite normal Americans of my acquaintance were appalled at the idea of state-provided health insurance that was a citizen's right, rather than being linked to employment. I can only suppose that there is an ingrained distrust of state provision, which makes people believe that it would not be safe to trust it with health. But it works in most other developed countries.

 

[exchemist]

Private healthcare has to exist.
Because professionals have the right to be rewarded for their work in their studio.

Well I agree, but that is a political point, whereas I was focusing what works, pragmatically.

 

[Estro Felino]

Those go back into municipal unions to help pay for free boob jobs and unrealistically extended service contracts for their buddies who helped them get elected.

Good ole' fashion cronyism.

As I said, only useful surgeries are paid for by the State.
There are other services. Waste management,etc... that is what municipial taxes are for.

 

[ChristineM]

France.

The state pays between 15 and 85% of most medical costs*, top up insurance, that most people have pays the rest.

If you don't have top up insurance you are stuck with the unpaid 15 to 85% of the bill.

Some procedures are not covered, cosmetic surgery, new untestested ideas.

Example, hubby had prostate cancer and was advised that a new robotic procedure has a better outcome, he would be only the 5th person in france to have the robotic procedure. The state / insurance paid for everything amounting to close on €120,000, but would not pay for the hire of the robot (€400), interestingly they did pay for the technicians to set up and drive the robot.

 

[Estro Felino]

France.

The state pays between 15 and 85% of most medical costs*, top up insurance, that most people have pays the rest.

If you don't have top up insurance you are stuck with the unpaid 15 to 85% of the bill.

Some procedures are not covered, cosmetic surgery, new untestested ideas.

Example, hubby had prostate cancer and was advised that a new robotic procedure has a better outcome, he would be only the 5th person in france to have the robotic procedure. The state / insurance paid for everything amounting to close on €120,000, but would not pay for the hire of the robot (€400), interestingly they did pay for the technicians to set up and drive the robot.

We are speaking of cancer . Here in Italy he would have paid nothing.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Health care in the UK is not free, it is insurance based.
National insurance contributions are paid most people at 12% of their pay ( will rise by 1.25% next year.)
High earners pay an extra 2% over about £4000 a month.
In addition to the employees payment, there is also a payment by the employer but this is a little more complex.

These national insurance payments cover medical costs some dental costs, state pensions and some social care costs.
Pensioners do not pay national insurance.

State dental care Is now abysmal, and you are required to pay a proportion of the treatment which amounts to about half of what a private dentist will charge for much better treatment. However if the Dental treatment is so serious as to need hospital treatment it is free. I had to have a broken tooth extracted in hospital because the NHS dentist could not do it. this was free.

I now have my teeth done privately.

People with long term illnesses can either have free prescriptions or pay a fixed sum for a long term pass. in practice only people of working age pay for prescription drugs, and then at a fixed price per item what ever the actual cost of the Drug.

(One new anomaly is that the Health service no longer removes ear wax as a treatment, unless there is another serious ear problem.
Doctors and health service clinics no longer offer it at all. If you need it done you must go privately. at a cost of at least £60 to £100 an ear. Strangely it is mostly opticians who are now offering this service.)

 

[Stevicus]

And yet, a lot of otherwise quite normal Americans of my acquaintance were appalled at the idea of state-provided health insurance that was a citizen's right, rather than being linked to employment. I can only suppose that there is an ingrained distrust of state provision, which makes people believe that it would not be safe to trust it with health. But it works in most other developed countries.

It comes from the Red Scare mentality and many Americans' obsessive fears of communism (which were largely induced through generations of propaganda). Likewise, there's an inordinate devotion and faith in capitalism, which is related to natural law and survival of the fittest. Our culture is pretty cold-blooded with a rather harsh and unforgiving view of life.

There may be some ingrained distrust in state provision, although many of the same people who favor capitalist medicine also favor a government-provided military, so they don't really distrust them that much.

A lot of it also is rooted in ideals of rugged individualism and self-reliance. No one really seems willing to admit it openly, but there's this underlying attitude (which people like my grandfather used to display) that people who are sick or need healthcare are "weak" and basically deserve to die (or they're being "punished by God"). Such attitudes were common when I was growing up, although perhaps not spoken about openly as much anymore. Still, I think it's at the core of why many Americans are resistant to the idea of socialized medicine.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has recently announced a mega health insurance scheme for India's poor people. Lancet reports this:

The scheme aims to provide up to 100 million poor families with approximately US$7,100 in annual health insurance coverage to pay for secondary or tertiary hospital care.
DEFINE_ME
https://www.google.com/search?q=India's+mega+health+plan&ei=roF6Ya2KEdDCz7sP6uOOsA4&ved=0ahUKEwitmZbq-OzzAhVQ4XMBHeqxA-YQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=India's+mega+health+plan&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAM6BwgAEEcQsAM6BQgAEM0CSgQIQRgAUMnmW1iColxg4q9caAJwAngAgAHWAYgB1xiSAQYwLjIxLjGYAQCgAQHIAQjAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz

 

[Kenny]

17 Universal Health Care Pros and Cons

I think it isn't an either/or... as with all things, neither is wrong--just different.

 

[HonestJoe]

Health care in the UK is not free, it is insurance based.
National insurance contributions are paid most people at 12% of their pay ( will rise by 1.25% next year.)

National Insurance isn't an actual insurance system by any stretch of the imagination, especially as it works now. In practice it's just an extension of income tax, going in to the same pot of money and only really kept separate and with that name for political reasons. NI payments wouldn't come close to covering the cost of running the NHS and hasn't for decades.

You don't need to have paid or be currently paying any National Insurance to receive NHS care (indeed, non-payers like children and pensioners often get greater NHS coverage) and some people who have paid National Insurance in the past (in obscure cases maybe even currently) can loose access to the NHS (e.g. ex-pats who have lived away for a certain length of time).

 

[Koldo]

17 Universal Health Care Pros and Cons

I think it isn't an either/or... as with all things, neither is wrong--just different.

Unless you are poor, of course. In which case one of them is clearly superior.

 

[Kenny]

Unless you are poor, of course. In which case one of them is clearly superior.

Absolutely... I believe that was listed under the "pro" category. I should know, I was in that category--though rich in God.

 

[exchemist]

It comes from the Red Scare mentality and many Americans' obsessive fears of communism (which were largely induced through generations of propaganda). Likewise, there's an inordinate devotion and faith in capitalism, which is related to natural law and survival of the fittest. Our culture is pretty cold-blooded with a rather harsh and unforgiving view of life.

There may be some ingrained distrust in state provision, although many of the same people who favor capitalist medicine also favor a government-provided military, so they don't really distrust them that much.

A lot of it also is rooted in ideals of rugged individualism and self-reliance. No one really seems willing to admit it openly, but there's this underlying attitude (which people like my grandfather used to display) that people who are sick or need healthcare are "weak" and basically deserve to die (or they're being "punished by God"). Such attitudes were common when I was growing up, although perhaps not spoken about openly as much anymore. Still, I think it's at the core of why many Americans are resistant to the idea of socialized medicine.

That's interesting. It fits with a lot of what I found a bit grating about living in Houston, charming though almost every American I met there seemed to be. (By the way, you can certainly see the rightwing idea that getting ill is a sort of weak, leftie thing to do, in some of the reactions to the pandemic, cf. our own prime minister. Until he nearly died of it.)

It's interesting too that you use the term "socialised medicine". This is terminology unique to the USA. I have read - I forget where - that the term was actually invented for a campaign by one of the medical lobby groups, as a way to denigrate the concept, by associating it with, yes, communism. And it seems to have worked!

(Mind you, as I've commented before on this forum, I knew people in Houston who thought that the plan to put in a tram line was "communist" .)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

National Insurance isn't an actual insurance system by any stretch of the imagination, especially as it works now. In practice it's just an extension of income tax, going in to the same pot of money and only really kept separate and with that name for political reasons. NI payments wouldn't come close to covering the cost of running the NHS and hasn't for decades.

You don't need to have paid or be currently paying any National Insurance to receive NHS care (indeed, non-payers like children and pensioners often get greater NHS coverage) and some people who have paid National Insurance in the past (in obscure cases maybe even currently) can loose access to the NHS (e.g. ex-pats who have lived away for a certain length of time).

All government income goes in to the same pot.
There is no relationship between income and payments for any government service.

Rules for those who can benefit in any way is purely a political decision.

The government invests neither insurance nor pension money, it pays for everything out of income and borrowings.

 

[Stevicus]

That's interesting. It fits with a lot of what I found a bit grating about living in Houston, charming though almost every American I met there seemed to be. (By the way, you can certainly see the rightwing idea that getting ill is a sort of weak, leftie thing to do, in some of the reactions to the pandemic, cf. our own prime minister. Until he nearly died of it.)

It's interesting too that you use the term "socialised medicine". This is terminology unique to the USA. I have read - I forget where - that the term was actually invented for a campaign by one of the medical lobby groups, as a way to denigrate the concept, by associating it with, yes, communism. And it seems to have worked!

(Mind you, as I've commented before on this forum, I knew people in Houston who thought that the plan to put in a tram line was "communist" .)

Yes, the right-wing uses "godless communism" as a scare tactic to manipulate the hoi polloi. It's worked for a very long time, with consistent success. The term "socialized medicine" has been commonly used for as long as I can remember.

 

[Estro Felino]

It comes from the Red Scare mentality and many Americans' obsessive fears of communism (which were largely induced through generations of propaganda). Likewise, there's an inordinate devotion and faith in capitalism, which is related to natural law and survival of the fittest. Our culture is pretty cold-blooded with a rather harsh and unforgiving view of life.

There may be some ingrained distrust in state provision, although many of the same people who favor capitalist medicine also favor a government-provided military, so they don't really distrust them that much.

A lot of it also is rooted in ideals of rugged individualism and self-reliance. No one really seems willing to admit it openly, but there's this underlying attitude (which people like my grandfather used to display) that people who are sick or need healthcare are "weak" and basically deserve to die (or they're being "punished by God"). Such attitudes were common when I was growing up, although perhaps not spoken about openly as much anymore. Still, I think it's at the core of why many Americans are resistant to the idea of socialized medicine.

Here almost everything is controlled by the State.
Even University, besides Education.
That is why medicine faculties who will teach and form the future physicians are accessible to very few people. Because the number of doctors that the NHS needs, is X and cannot be higher/lower.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes, the right-wing uses "godless communism" as a scare tactic to manipulate the hoi polloi. It's worked for a very long time, with consistent success. The term "socialized medicine" has been commonly used for as long as I can remember.

The existence of a NHS does not prevent privates from creating private hospitals, private clinic and private emergency rooms.
In fact the wealthy go to those private facilities, as far as I know.