Hacker News Reader

Comment by marcinzm | Hacker News Reader

I've heard a lot of negative stories about the British health system including people waiting 6+ months to see doctors (while in pain or having other symptoms that lower quality of life significantly). If you think an American universal health system will be somehow better than that then I suspect you're a lot more optimistic about the US government than most people.

edit: I do love echo chambers, someone asks a question about why a certain groups thinks a certain way, you answer and you get downvoted. Why bother being on a discussion forum if you don't ever want to hear what the other side sees things as even when directly asked? Especially amusing since I do support universal healthcare but actually try to understand why people oppose it rather than covering my eyes and ears whenever they talk.

View on HN

> I've heard a lot of negative stories about the British health system including people waiting 6+ months to see doctors...

The wait time for an American at the poverty line seeking care for an expensive but non-emergency chronic condition can be effectively infinite.

My wife receives treatment for chronic pain. Getting treatment at a pain clinic started required five visits (including being able to physically get there in the first place), lab work, etc. Each of those required a hefty co-pay, and someone on a Bronze ACA plan will have a multi-thousand dollar deductible to meet before even those kick in.

If you're working minimum wage and have a pain condition, treatment is likely inaccessible, even if you technically have fully subsidized health insurance.

The question was about how can people be anti-universal healthcare. As you pointed out the group most impacted are those who are poor but not so poor as to be on Medicaid. You also need to exclude ex-military as they have VA benefits. And those over 65 who are on Medicare. That's not a majority or close to it of the population.

partially fault of stringent regulation on pain medication because often it is consisting of controlled substance. bad penalties if doctor is not careful enough about giving to anybody.

It's an example, but it's hardly unique to pain treatment. Any specialist is going to bill out at a couple hundred bucks for a quick visit, and might be scheduling 3-6 months out; that's entirely your financial responsibility if you haven't met your deductible.

Anything that requires ongoing treatments or regular doctors' visits is going to be largely inaccessible to a low-income person on a high-deductible plan.

Why do American people think it's the 'government' that will be providing the healthcare?

To me, the NHS in the UK is run by the NHS (chiefs, trusts, executives, etc). It's funded and meddled with by the government. But it outlives each successive government.

You'll hear far more positive stories than negative ones if you ask any one in the UK.

My kid spent a week in infant ICU. Cost to me zero. Total cost of pregnancy zero. Time thinking about the cost until now zero.

Money and healthcare are two exclusive concepts to the average British person. If we thought more about cost and healthcare maybe people would be willing to pay more tax for it. But they think it's free.

>You'll hear far more positive stories than negative ones if you ask any one in the UK.

The same applies in the US in terms of health coverage. The outliers are more vocal and more screwed but not a majority by far.

It is worth noting for clarity that there is no "British health system" – the constituent nations of the UK have separate and distinct healthcare systems.

In reality, "negative stories" aren't much of a strong signal. There are likely as many "positive stories" that don't get as much traction, particularly because there is quite a lot of effort invested in the US into spreading FUD about single-payer healthcare systems. Though I do agree that this effort is effective on many people.

Shouldn't the point of comparison be the current state of US healthcare, were many people don't get to see a doctor at all because they're uninsured and poor? (Or at least that's the impression I get as an outsider from discussions on the Internet about the topic)

The question was why people don't like universal health care and not an objective measurement of its value to society as a while. Around 10% of the US population is uninsured so 90% does have insurance. So 90% of the population isn't comparing it to a system with no-insurance.

Also worth adding is that most of those uninsured are present in the country illegally. For comparison, UK’s NHS does not offer free services beyond primary care to those unlawfully present either, and I think this is true of most other public healthcare systems around the world.

But it is ethical to keep the lines shorter by excluding the poor?

No but that wasn't the question the OP asked. Unless you've got a nation of saints the majority of people will make somewhat selfish decisions.

And for most citizens of developed countries that selfishness translates to universal health care. No need to worry.

If you are actually poor in the US, you qualify for free or highly subsidized healthcare. US has plenty of those social welfare programs, and people online typically are well off enough that they aren’t even aware of them.

Because it's been decimated by the Tories for ten years now.

And the US elected Trump, why do you think the same thing wouldn't happen in the US within a decade?

I'm not going to argue hypotheticals,, but even a decimated NHS is far better than the US system.

Many American's don't however since they hear the bad stories but are perfectly happy with the care they get under their insurance. Which was the question asked and not "which health system is objectively better."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com