Huh? I'm pretty sure you can get bankrupted by illness in any country
Most developed countries also have some measures of social security in cases where you lose your job so that even that is rare.
In other countries with universal healthcare, the law says that you will get only "medically necessary" treatment, amd everything else needs to be paid out of your pocket - and in these countries, no private insurance usually exists, so have fun with that.
Another point is quality of hospitalization care, again - there are less than 5 countries in the world where you'd get the same thing as in the US. In other countries you will share room with 5 other people, and be aware that usually at least one family member per patient is always present. Treatments such as colonoscopy are done in your room, btw. There usually is just one male and one female toilet and shower per ~10 rooms, of course used by the family members as well. The food is literally uneatable 99% of the time, 1% of the time you're lucky and it's plain bread and tea (nothing to screw up on that). Prepare yourself to be screamed at regularly by doctors and nurses. Prepare yourself to be bellitled at every opportunity. And prepare yourself that your family members might die because noone listened to them, and the only compensation you can get is the sentence "well, that's just the system, the government really didn't want that" - correct, no monetary compensation, no fines, no prison.
Did I mention that there is no way to go private other than paying out of pocket, and of course who would run a medical company in a country with universal healthcare?
Source: my whole life in a "universal healthcare" country.
Edit: Let the downvotes flow, I just stated my experience, definitely a downvote-worthy comment, lol. Dumbass me thought we would discuss.
Seems interesting tho. Almost every time I write my experiences with universal healthcare, I'm immediatelly (within 5 minutes) heavily downvoted, without any discussion. Hard denial? Universal healthcare definitely helps pharma and medical companies (they can overprice a lot, just like with any other governmental project). Lobby?
Not sure where you live or where you've been too, but you make some sweeping arguments about dozens of countries.
Mostly everything you say is wrong about Germany (>65% taxation, no private insurance, share room with 5 people, treatments in your room, toilet not in the room, uneatable food, ...).
Isn't it interesting that the best healthcare system in the world is entirely privatized, in Switzerland?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland
They still have universal healthcare/ mandatory health insurance.
I don't think the libertarian types would be too happy with that.
and
>Insurers are required to offer this basic insurance to everyone, regardless of age or medical condition. They are not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance, but can on supplemental plans
Both have amazing public/private systems, where everyone has access to public healthcare, and if you want to pay the extra money, you can go private. They also have (very affordable and fair) health insurance if you want that extra security.
The public hospitals are fine in both countries, you'll get the critical care you need, when you need it. There aren't people dying of cancer because the government can't afford treatment. Sure, it's a bit slow for non-essential and elective treatment (e.g. a hip replacement or other corrective surgery), but it does get done eventually and as I said you can always go private, which is a lot cheaper than the USA, as they have to compete with free healthcare.
I'm really not sure why you keep quoting total taxation as some kind of negative point regarding countries with universal healthcare and functioning social welfare systems? Quality of life, both for individuals and for the whole population is a much more important measure.
I'm not sure which country you're talking about but this doesn't reflect my experience of healthcare in the UK at all (presumably one of the 5 countries you mention).
Our private healthcare system is truly world class and very affordable (it has to compete with the NHS, after all). Yes, medical insurance is available to cover this. That said, even the NHS will routinely cover treatments that aren't "medically necessary" - even cosmetic surgery in some cases where it will demonstrably improve the patient's quality of life.
I don't believe there are any countries in the world with ">65% taxation". What is this figure even referring to?
Let us consider:
> Did I mention that there is no way to go private other than paying out of pocket, and of course who would run a medical company in a country with universal healthcare?
Like many people here, I’ve held private insurance in the UK. The last time I paid for it, I think I paid £150/m for it, but I’ve had several employees cover it.
And that's one of the really confusing things about people who criticise the NHS: there are plenty of things that are real problems and that we're trying to fix, but these aren't the things they talk about.
> Universal healthcare definitely helps pharma and medical companies (they can overprice a lot, just like with any other governmental project). Lobby?
This point in particular is incoherent. Universal healthcare always has cheaper medication pricing than eg the US. The prices are open and available. Pick a med and compare.
Case in point, last year I have been treated for some serious health issue that would have immediately bankrupted me in the USA, forever.
I was in the network of Charité Berlin, one of the biggest hospitals in Europe. The treatment and care was overall fantastic. Yes, usually it seems the universal healthcare moves slowly. But once I was diagnosed, things _kicked_ in, let me tell you. The operation was brought on within days, insurance immediately got out of the way, the aftercare and radiation was scheduled immediately - things just went automatic. There were no 5-people hospital rooms and of course every room had a bath and toilet - what are you talking about? The facilities and rooms were all top notch. Moreover, the doctors involved were Professors and otherwise top experts in the entire field, treating hundreds of tough cases every year.
And you know what I payed? Nothing.
Again, in the USA, all the operations, radiation treatment, medicine, expensive machinery used and months in the hospital... It would have cost literal millions. I probably simply would have DIED because I could never afford it. Here, however, I had close to the optimal (and positive!) experience that one could have in such a situation.
So yes, if you have a common cold, you will probably get less "treatment" on public than on private insurance.
But - from my experience - when you get seriously ill, the amount of ressources, personell and technology that hospitals like Charité can and will bring to bear to save your life, at no cost to you, borders on ridiculous. Seriously I often felt uncomfortable because of the amount of care. Those people seriously wanted to make sure I don't die, even though I am not important, don't have money and certainly not private insurance. This includes hospital staff AND the people from the public insurance.
For the latter, I expected a lot of resistance to the cost - like a private insurance would do. Them trying to minimize the treatment. Instead, the people at the insurance immediately "stamped" everything, and even me asking timidly about the costs was met with non-comprehension. It was pretty clear, when things get serious, the public insurance officials care about your life, no matter how much you pay.
Sorry but I feel rather passionate about this, and might I even say that I actually prefer public insurance for that reason. No where else would I have been important enough to live.
The first is probably incorrect unless you're totally unemployed as most employers in the US provide private health insurance, and the second is truly incorrect as the vast majority of those who are not employed are covered by things like medicaid. We don't generally just let people die in the US because they don't have health insurance, and in fact hospitals in the US write off millions of dollars in care every year because the bills simply aren't paid -- but they still provide the care, simply shifting the cost to the government and to those of us who do pay the bills (and by extension our insurance companies).
Most of the "facts" people believe about healthcare in the US are badly uninformed and based in the mostly false arguments of those who wish, at all costs, to abolish private healthcare in the US and replace it with medicaid because of their political ideology.
Again, I have to ask because I don't know, but are you saying all the news reports of where exactly the above happens to people are fake? There were many reports where people DID HAVE some insurance by their employers, but when it came to a long and expensive treatment, insurance refused to pay, or they lost their job very fast. Would you say these issues do not occur, or occur very infrequently? Are the people on this board, who say they are afraid of losing their insurance coverage due to job-loss wrong?
If you propose that I get treated and the costs are written off, that still means I would have to declare bankruptcy and ruin my live further. Because it's not that I do not have any money, or minimal savings. It's just that the extend, complexity and length of the treatment leads to costs that can not be payed by a normal person, including pretty much any normal percentage of the costs.
And then, personally, I'd also doubt that I would actually receive that treatment if I can not pay. You say people you don't let die, but this is a multi-year treatment and it would be apparent after the first week that I can not pay for it. There is a difference in long term health and survival by the quality and frequency of long term treatments over many years. Would a private, for business organization really do this for my benefit? Like, experts would treat me for years in a top institution in the country, even though I pay nothing? Really? Or would they rather just do the minimum to get rid of any immediate danger and then release me?
And where do you see the advantage? Here, I still got the best treatment you could ask for (top experts, newest equipment, good facilities), and I was able to continue my life without being bankrupt.
Yes, as we've seen in the last few days, nearly everything you see in the "news" reports from the US is heavily biased. There are no longer any unbiased media who report facts -- they all report the bias they want to push, and this particular bias is very popular among a large sector of those who want the US to convert to a socialist economy (which not coincidentally lines up with most of the US media's political views).
Don't base your ideas on wikipedia. Here's the source: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/eligibility/index.html. Bottom line, if you don't have the money to afford medical care you will almost certainly be covered by medicaid -- now even including pre-existing conditions. In that regard, the US already has the socialized medicine system people want -- those who want it changed simply want all private insurance removed because they don't like its existence. It's not properly socialistic enough that some have good private insurance and others have public insurance. Of course those arguing this the loudest are congressmen and women covered by one of the best insurance plans in the country.
Your experience -- treatment by top experts and such in a socialized medical system is highly a-typical. You would likely not get that anywhere else on the planet, including all the other socialized medicine countries. It is not normal for socialized medicine to provide that level of care anywhere.
There are a lot of caveats to all of this, it doesn't all work perfectly. None of what I'm arguing is meant to claim the US has a perfect health care system -- we don't. There's a lot of room for improvement, but let's have the discussion from a foundation of facts instead of left-wing talking points.
Isn't it interesting that any time someone tries to disprove me, it's always Germany, Austria and UK or Scandinavia (these are the five+UK), but never Czech Republic, Poland, Spain, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldavia, Serbia, Croatia, Albania, Belorussia and even Russia...? Isn't it maybe because of the issues I'm talking about?
I'm happy that your system works, meanwhile I'm starting my 5th month of waiting in line for a really needed treatment of my back. I've been skipped several times already (corruption).
/s, because I guess I was wrong, apparently?