Hacker News Reader

Perhaps you're being downvoted because you're unable to back up any of these vague claims with facts.

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?

You’re being downvoted because you’re wrong, and anyone with any familiarity at all with the other systems knows you’re wrong.

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.

Exactly. I've also had private health insurance in the UK in the past. It cost a lot less than £150/month and when I used it I generally ended up in posh central London hospitals that get enough of their business from rich Arabs that they boasted of their Dubai TV channels.

UK does not have a universal healthcare system in a comparable way to continental Europe. It is excluded from what I said, but it's not much of a change - that makes it sixth in the world. Out of 195.

How does the UK not have universal healthcare?

Sorry I was mistaken, however: Every commenter here is talking about their experiences in private clinics. These are not a part of most universal healthcare systems and it's polar opposite of what the USA liberals are proposing. That's why I didn't want to count UK in, however other commenters have proved to me that it was a mistake - if any homeless man is able to get such treatment, I have to agree it's universal - but is this true? Noone here confirmed that yet.

It would help if you could say which healthcare system you're talking about, because what you say bears no resemblance to the English NHS. I'm not sure why you mention the UK system because you don't appear to know anything about 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.

In the Czech Republic and most other universal healthcare systems you need to separate pharmaceutics sold to patients directly (prescription or over the counter) and pharmaceutics sold in bulk to (governmental) medical facilities, I meant the latter. These are considered two different fields of business here.

"In other countries with universal healthcare [...]"

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, ...).

Germany is one of the five countries, and it has the lowest taxes among them. The rest are Austria and Scandinavian countries where total taxation rate approaches 70% all things factored in (I'm counting indirect taxes as well).

Isn't it interesting that the best healthcare system in the world is entirely privatized, in Switzerland?

You can add Australia and New Zealand to that list too.

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.

Very well, I'm happy to hear it's 8 now if we include UK and the original five (Germany, Austria, Scandinavia). Can we find more? Still way too low to justify a change that affects almost a whole continent (population wise) IMHO.

And Czechia? Slovakia? Poland?

These are the ones I have 20 years of experience with. Want more stories? I have friends working in healthcare, you wouldn't believe what they say.

>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

I think most people do not see how this is somehow worse than being bankrupted for being sick. For the record, I don't either. I'll eat my dry bread if it means I can then continue to not spend the rest of my life paying back the bills.

Noone in Switzerland spends their lifes paying bills. Perhaps the system as you implemented it is wrong, but not the general idea?

You are downvoted because you generalize your experience to every country except a vague set of 5... What you are saying is simply not true in most of Europe.

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.

Germany is one of the five. I purposefuly left it out to see how many people will talk about Germany, trying to say that it's the same in the whole EU.

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).

You might qualify your argument by clarifying that you're basing your argument on the idea that you wouldn't have had private insurance in the US and that you believe there is no healthcare in the US outside of private insurance.

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.

As far as I can see, no private insurance would take me - it is a clear loss. Furthermore, it does not seem I would qualify for Medicaid nor Medicare (from reading the wikipedia article). As for employment insurance - in the USA I would certainly not be employed except the company is uncharacteristically nice. Because in the USA, you can kick anyone out, especially someone who just spends months in the hospital. Or is that not true? So how do you imagine I would be insured then?

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.

If you're arguing that you'd be fired because you got sick in the US, that's not likely accurate -- certainly not accurate in terms of any professional job. Every company I've worked for has short term and long term disability insurance along with health insurance as well, and while most of the US is right to work it's also not normal to fire someone just because they have medical issues.

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.

I'm sorry for your loss, but you have to stop pretending that Florida is not part of the USA.