Hacker News Reader

Comment by urvader | Hacker News Reader

There are private health insurances here too. If the public system would be so bad as you describe it everyone would use the private ones but very few do.

View on HN

Wait what? I live here too, and many employers do pay for private insurance because it saves heaps of time for the employees. Why do you think the private options sprung up in the first place?

The public system has serious flaws. I was told by the public system to take antibiotics for 6 months straight while waiting for a tonsil removal operation. Got my operation a few days later through my private insurance.

From my experience in the UK, people typically don't get private insurance because they _believe_ in the public system, not because they have a generally positive experience with the public system. They don't really realize that the service could or should be much different, so they just put up with it because they believe in the system being the way it is. They believe in chipping in, paying their fair share, and everyone being in the pot. It's a mind set, not an optimal set of circumstances. I admire the mindset in many ways, but it doesn't make for quick or efficient service. It all kind of depends on what you optimize for, and what you are willing to put up with based on your worldview of what is most important.

It's not super-common, but some employers do offer private health insurance. The numbers I saw suggested about 10% were covered by such insurance which isn't a huge number but isn't nothing either.

I would guess less than half of those people ever use the coverage, and those that do still use the public option for more than half their medical needs. It's often bundled with employment packages with the idea that it provides some kind of insurance when a key member of staff need treatment and can be prioritised to jump some queues, but in everyday situations like when their kid falls off a bike and spits out some teeth, they're going to use the same service as everyone else, because it's simply quicker and more effective to do so.

Private insurance is very much a supplement, not a totally parallel system in the UK:

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/do-you-nee...

It might change depending on exactly how you define efficiency but the UK system scores highest in some global comparisons in terms of bang for buck.

From the way you phrase it I assume you actually mean inefficient service, like you'd get at a high end restaurant or hotel, where they have lots of people hanging around doing nothing a lot of the time so no one ever feels they're being treated less than a VIP in busy periods.

Private Health insurance without group plans does not really work well so the fact people don't choose it doesn't mean much to me.

Essentially, since sick people are more likely to choose such plans the costs are going to be very high. Either that or the restrictions on the plans need to be high to prevent it. Both make such plans unattractive independent of how bad or good the public plans are.

>If the public system would be so bad as you describe it everyone would use the private ones but very few do.

that's simply dishonest. there are tons of other variables to consider when pondering private insurance adoption rates.

> If the public system would be so bad as you describe it everyone would use the private ones but very few do.

Maybe they can't afford private insurance?

> If the public system would be so bad as you describe it everyone would use the private ones but very few do.

Ah, that's simply wrong, because you pay for public healthcare anyways (through taxes), hence private one is to be paid twice.

I doubt the system is `that bad`, but even in Russia, where private healthcare is super cheap (and very good) and public healthcare is a total disaster, a few people use the private one (until they are wealthy) due to exact same reason: they've already paid for the public one and feel like paying twice is not an option.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com