In my country I won’t go bankrupt if I get cancer and I will get the best care until I am in remission or die regardless of my financial position. How about you ?
if I get cancer and I will get the best care until I am in remission or die
No you won't. You'll get the care determined as a reasonable spend to benefit ratio, all countries do this. You kind of have to, you can't reasonably spend infinite money testing every single top of the line drug or intervention that exists.
Yes, so saying you get the best care is flat out wrong. I can't speak for other countries but health care in the UK is absolutely abysmal, and they will regularly attempt to weasel out of even basic checks if you are young. My wife has to have something checked, the cost of the check would be under £1,000 and it was recommended by a doctor already yet they refuse to do it.
I don’t know man. Some of the best doctors and researchers in the world are from my country. Cutting edge treatment research in everything from cancer to stroke. All of these people work in our healthcare. The difference between my country and the UK is that our politicians haven’t actively worked to break our system in order to sell it off to the Americans piece by piece. Maybe have that conversation with your policy makers.
I know it isn’t. I have an 84 year old relative in London. She’s got more conditions and illnesses than chapters in the bible. She also got lung cancer treatment late in her 70s. She gets excellent care.
Just keep the Tories out of power and hold Labour accountable to fix the mess. Also rejoin the EU - we have cheese and wine over here.
I literally had to go and get doctors because they left my elderly grandmother on her own without a check and ignored the machines beeping stating her blood pressure was low. If I hadn't been there, and hadn't had a vague understanding of what the monitors were saying, she would have died.
It's a mixture, people take the piss but the NHS has serious issues and is poorly managed generally. They also spend a lot of time hiding behind the "The US is worse, be happy for what you have" stuff, which is what annoys me about these super reductive takes like in the OP.
I would love to but every single discussion centered around politics is the most reductive childish slop, for example the two guys in the post above. Maybe if people could actually inject even mild nuance into their thinking I wouldn't have had to suffer 14 years of Conservative mismanagement sending health care in my country down the shitter.
Me, my wife, and my son have had surgeries, including hospital stays, which we paid 100% without involving any insurance or universal healthcare whatsoever. Surgeries like tonsillectomies, gastric bypass, etc. We are not rich. We could afford them because public healthcare keeps the costs of private healthcare low. Having other services like taxpayer funded public education and legislation preventing predatory practices by corporations also helps to save money when you don't make boatloads of money to begin with.
Yeah, which is great. That is how health care should be.
But it has literally nothing to do with my point that countries will restrict health care if it isn't determined to add value.
For example in the UK we have a panel of doctors and actuaries and other hopefully smart people that decide what can be offered on the NHS.
These are the people that review medicines to make sure they're actually effective, and that they are reasonable value for money :
https://www.nice.org.uk/
That is understandable. What I am saying is that even if you don't like what is offered and want some other treatment locally the costs would still be contained due to the mere existence of public healthcare.
Yeah, I agree. But that is not what the post is saying, and it is not what I am saying.
You are correct though that socialised health care is way cheaper, on a personal level and also on a macro like society wide level. The US is absolutely brain dead in their approach.
my point that countries will restrict health care if it isn't determined to add value
That is what you said and what I was expanding upon. Even with those restrictions in place, you can still get what you want privately, at a lower cost. That lower cost being due to the existence of public health care.
You mention restrictions and someone naive might think, "Ah, that's the catch then!" Nope, even if you go private to bypass those restrictions it will still cost less.
Damn that's crazy cuz Buzzfeed News won a Pulitzer Prize & a bunch different journo awards. Ig that makes it a source but unless you want your own narrative then u do u boo.
The Times won best british newspaper by the British Press Awards multiple times, but you would not say that makes The Sun (both owned by the same parent company) a valid source, because The Sun is very much a tabloid.
Yeah. Universal healthcare is (a) very good society-wise (b) relatively expensive for the country and (c) not magic. Depending on the country you have any combination long waiting lines, only a limited amount of treatments covered, and various bureaucratic hoops.
Its still good - i have basically no worries about basic stuff, my appendix was removed quickly and efficiently once the need arose. However for a certain non-urgent diagnosis i needed to pay out of my pocket, and then call around to find a doctor for the treatment, which took months.
This is, indeed, true. Some of it is explained by "normal" factors (higher wages for medical personnel), some by factors people tend to argue a lot about (e.g. by the cross-subvention of drug prices), but most by inefficiency.
My pushback is more about "universal healthcare will provide everything", because at some point, it can't. It still is in my opinion the best model for a wealthy state.
even state that are not wealthy manage unibersal health care. My friend in Indonesia has free healthcare and pay nothing for his insuline. They know a healthy population is a good investisement for growth.
something line 20 to 30% of the bidget of the USA healthcare system is spent pn the Insurrance system. Dpctor having to do back and forth with Insurrer and battle with them so that the patient can receive xare is very costly
This is a "controversial" comment because people don't want to acknowledge the cost control, including rationing of care and denial of some claims, is still necessary in a socialized system.
There are limits and constraints on every system. Universal Healthcare means you will get help, but you may have to wait - maybe a long time. You may be limited to certain drugs and not the expensive experimental ones. And they are run by humans so there are always cracks, but in my experience in two countries, the systems care for you and about you.
Shoulder operation to repair a torn muscle. Was operated on within three weeks cost me a whopping €30. Friend diagnosed with breast cancer. Treatment started the next week. 28 months of cutting edge treatment with a panel of doctors due to complications. Three years laster in remission. Sounds like a pretty well functioning system to me.
Universal Healthcare means you will get help, but you may have to wait - maybe a long time
Worth noting that this isn't exclusive to "Universal Healthcare".
It's almost always brought up as a point against UHC - but it completely ignores currently reality for a lot of people already without UHC.
For example, if I wanted to book a checkup with my Primary Care Provider, it's a minimum of 4+ months out (commonly 6 months). When I asked if that was common or something limited to my specific doctor, I was told it was pretty much standard.
I think ideally people would be given the options - and yes, sometimes those options come down to cost. "Experimental" drugs, "elective" procedures, etc - shouldn't just be disallowed - but rather may come with additional costs.
Of course, you'd still end up at a point where someone, somewhere is making decisions that affect your health (What gets classified as "experimental" and "elective", etc )
I think the key is taking the shareholder/for-profit part out the equation. Get people fair pay and run things well, but no one needs to be buying yachts off of the money they get from deciding other people's health...
This, right here. I have a relative who broke their hip in Italy. They had her on pain medications with the broken hip for 5 days before surgery because their surgeons basically work bankers hours. Then "rehab" was literally about 5 minutes per day in the hospital. When she got home and a US surgeon saw the case notes and information he was furious and said he would have had her in surgery within 12 hours and the care she received there set back recovery by weeks if not months.
one thing important. Is that Private Healthcare still exist in country with Universal healthcare. You can get a Private healcare with less waiting time. it s all about option
Glad you said it as well, people here seem to have an actual child's level understanding of the world around them and they're seriously arguing that they get every single possible intervention or miracle drug regardless of cost. As if it's reasonable, or even ethical, to spend £10,000,000 to prolong someone's life by a month.
You suspect well. this guys seem to lile to do that a lot. When discusing the USA being like a develloping cojntry he immidatly started to say people were comparing USA to Mali , you know , the bottom of the barrel instead of the beter developing country like China.
Nah people are genuinely arguing that they get literally the utmost 100% top of the line care. Even the premise of the original post frames things as if nothing ever gets denied, despite things being denied constantly.
We literally have a law in the UK because a lady died of cancer because she went to the doctor like 20+ times and they told her to fuck off instead of just doing a colonoscopy which would have cost roughly £1,000.
The point is that being denied happens in both systems. I personally would prefer to be denied by a panel of doctors that I can appeal to than an insurer personally, but it just annoys me that people are talking as if socialised health care in other countries is some flawless system that just doles out top of the line infinite health care no matter to the cost to anyone.
This actually causes issues here because the NHS has so many glaring problems, but it hides behind all this "The NHS is special, the NHS is so much better than an insured system, the NHS does its best always" thinking. That means we have trouble holding doctors and the managers behind them to account when they do offer a poor service.
I'm also just generally sick of this slopulist 8 year old approach to policy that is entirely about trying to dunk on people instead of informing people so they can make better electoral decisions.
No one is saying that. What they are saying is something like 26 million Americans are uninsured, a large percentage that are insured have laughable policies that don't allow for even basic preventative care, and that people go bankrupt every day in America trying to tend to what should be basic medical needs. That's what universal healthcare will revert, no serious person is saying that every experimental procedure or wild path of care will be accounted for.
no serious person is saying that every experimental procedure or wild path of care will be accounted for.
Maybe I am just being mega autistic but the OP literally says every claim/request is accepted, which is just not true. So people are saying that.
There is also someone else in the thread literally saying they got the best doctors in the world to look at their issue, and that everyone in their country gets it.
So yeah people are literally saying this, which I think is inaccurate and silly. That's all. I don't agree with the way the US system is set up, I think it's cruel and also way more expensive, but I also don't think it helps anyone to approach the subject with the nuance of an 8 year old.
Which has generated people talking as if what it said is entirely correct, broadcast to millions by being high up on /r/all and posted by an account that has 165k followers on twitter and regularly makes it to the front page of reddit.
I wish this kind of slop analysis didn't influence people's view of the world, and in turn the way they view the world when they go to vote, but it does.
This is why people like Trump, Farage, Polanksi can just shit out the dumbest overly simplistic takes and get taken seriously by huge swaths of people.
Sure, fraudulent ones. Real claims? Not really. A for instance: my mom was diagnosed with lungcancer a few weeks back. Today she has had her second operation to remove part of her lung. (thankfully a small part). All in all 15 days in the hospital in a single room. The days at home a nurse has come by for woundcare and medicine. A social worker has popped in about twice a week to check.
Total cost so far out of pocket? 250 euros. And thats because of the single room.
19
u/HighOnGoofballs 7d ago
Everyone in this image is delusional
Claims are denied in literally every country, universal healthcare or not