The true obscenity in the American healthcare system is that you spend twice as much per-capita as Canada - and a far larger share of GDP - on health for a system that is clearly crufty and inferior for a great many people. I've been trying to avoid that issue and the various merits of the ACA partly because It's somebody elses problem. A lot of the criticism reminds me of something that happened with car insurance here recently - where providers were forbidden from taking gender into account. You can guess what happened next....
Ultimately, all healthcare systems will have their failings. There is no perfect solution. With all systems there's ultimately a limited amount of care resources that's available - a finite number of doctors, nurses and beds. All that changes is the method of allocation. The Public system is excellent for things that will kill you soon and chronic conditions- like cancer or a serious heart condition. They go straight to the front of the queue. It falls down on some of the more elective procedures or quality of life related
There's always a filter. With private systems, it's ultimately a matter of whether you can pay (Or your insurance company is willing to pay for you). With public, it's a matter of who's in the most danger and how do we keep them from dying or going to pieces.
People in the UK do bitch about the NHS - but nobody seriously considers dismantling it in favour of privatised system because - for the majority of cases at least - the outcomes are better. One fact that might also surprise you is that there are private healthcare operations in the UK. And they advertise themselves as being able to offer a better standard of care than the public system - especially for more elective surgery or 'comfort' issues. Many people in the UK will have insurance - and the insurance providers have to work for their cash because going uninsured is a viable alternative. There are more procedures available in the US because the market is about ten times larger. A single specialist or specialised machine in an obscure surgery is more likely to be in the States simply because there will be more people in the States who will be requiring that surgery - and so would justify the expense of hiring/teaching/retaining that specialised and their hardware.
I do have insurance. It's 700 annually - and worth it because it covers travel to foreign countries better than travel insurance- among other things. Our system is a bit different to the UK - there's less offered publicly for a start simply. My Uncle was shafted by his insurance utterly because the person who sold it to him made a mistake on the form - and they didn't notice it until he took seriously ill - at which point they dropped him like a stone (Yes, I can throw anecdotes around too). He spent the next few months in a regional hospital where they did goddamned everything available to keep him alive anyway - including a month in intensive care. There was a bill - but it was substantially less than if the whole cost had had to be paid for out of pocket. And because of that, someone's knee surgery or hip-replacement was delayed. There was only (Figuratively) one bed, and it went to the person who would die without it, as opposed to the person who'd be in some discomfort for a few more weeks.
Ultimately, it's a case of swings and roundabouts. Anecdotes can swing it in either way and there will always be negatives for any system. I prefer a Government run system because - in theory - I can control the Government. I have no control over a private corporation beyond whether I buy from them, or their competitor (Unless it's a monopoly in which case I'm fucked). But I can tell the Government what to do. f there's a problem with hospital, or a grievance with the system and how it allocates healthcare resources or otherwise functions I'd like addressed, I can write a letter to my representative - along with any number of like-minded individuals - and in theory they will act upon that letter. Especially if there's enough of them.
I have, to be honest, had some success in this matter. I was surprised to find that a question I asked of my representative, was taken all the way to a the minister, and I received an informative response along with links to documents that showed how my query was already being addressed and that they were accepting submission from the public on the matter. I supposed I'm fortunate to have a TD who actually tries to take the public servant thing truthfully and will stick to his guns enough to resign from his party.
But. having the Government throw its toys out of the pram and refuse to take part - on the other hand - is ridiculous. That's not how Governments are supposed to work. Anywhere else, the system as written would have a mechanism either to force a resolution, or force an election to effectively put it to the people and ask them who they think is right. And there'd still be enough there to bridge the gap and keep the lights on. Pretty much every other democracy on the face of planet Earth has mechanisms in place to prevent exactly this sort of system lockup - usually by forcing a reboot instead of waiting and watching the beachball spin.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
Ultimately, all healthcare systems will have their failings. There is no perfect solution. With all systems there's ultimately a limited amount of care resources that's available - a finite number of doctors, nurses and beds. All that changes is the method of allocation. The Public system is excellent for things that will kill you soon and chronic conditions- like cancer or a serious heart condition. They go straight to the front of the queue. It falls down on some of the more elective procedures or quality of life related
There's always a filter. With private systems, it's ultimately a matter of whether you can pay (Or your insurance company is willing to pay for you). With public, it's a matter of who's in the most danger and how do we keep them from dying or going to pieces.
People in the UK do bitch about the NHS - but nobody seriously considers dismantling it in favour of privatised system because - for the majority of cases at least - the outcomes are better. One fact that might also surprise you is that there are private healthcare operations in the UK. And they advertise themselves as being able to offer a better standard of care than the public system - especially for more elective surgery or 'comfort' issues. Many people in the UK will have insurance - and the insurance providers have to work for their cash because going uninsured is a viable alternative. There are more procedures available in the US because the market is about ten times larger. A single specialist or specialised machine in an obscure surgery is more likely to be in the States simply because there will be more people in the States who will be requiring that surgery - and so would justify the expense of hiring/teaching/retaining that specialised and their hardware.
I do have insurance. It's 700 annually - and worth it because it covers travel to foreign countries better than travel insurance- among other things. Our system is a bit different to the UK - there's less offered publicly for a start simply. My Uncle was shafted by his insurance utterly because the person who sold it to him made a mistake on the form - and they didn't notice it until he took seriously ill - at which point they dropped him like a stone (Yes, I can throw anecdotes around too). He spent the next few months in a regional hospital where they did goddamned everything available to keep him alive anyway - including a month in intensive care. There was a bill - but it was substantially less than if the whole cost had had to be paid for out of pocket. And because of that, someone's knee surgery or hip-replacement was delayed. There was only (Figuratively) one bed, and it went to the person who would die without it, as opposed to the person who'd be in some discomfort for a few more weeks.
Ultimately, it's a case of swings and roundabouts. Anecdotes can swing it in either way and there will always be negatives for any system. I prefer a Government run system because - in theory - I can control the Government. I have no control over a private corporation beyond whether I buy from them, or their competitor (Unless it's a monopoly in which case I'm fucked). But I can tell the Government what to do. f there's a problem with hospital, or a grievance with the system and how it allocates healthcare resources or otherwise functions I'd like addressed, I can write a letter to my representative - along with any number of like-minded individuals - and in theory they will act upon that letter. Especially if there's enough of them.
I have, to be honest, had some success in this matter. I was surprised to find that a question I asked of my representative, was taken all the way to a the minister, and I received an informative response along with links to documents that showed how my query was already being addressed and that they were accepting submission from the public on the matter. I supposed I'm fortunate to have a TD who actually tries to take the public servant thing truthfully and will stick to his guns enough to resign from his party.
But. having the Government throw its toys out of the pram and refuse to take part - on the other hand - is ridiculous. That's not how Governments are supposed to work. Anywhere else, the system as written would have a mechanism either to force a resolution, or force an election to effectively put it to the people and ask them who they think is right. And there'd still be enough there to bridge the gap and keep the lights on. Pretty much every other democracy on the face of planet Earth has mechanisms in place to prevent exactly this sort of system lockup - usually by forcing a reboot instead of waiting and watching the beachball spin.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?