Earlier this year, I shattered my elbow in a freak fall, requiring surgery, plates and screws. While I am a US citizen, several years ago I married an Englishman and became a UK resident, entitled to coverage on the British National Health Service. My NHS surgeon was able to schedule me in for the three-hour surgery less than two weeks after my fall, and my physical therapist saw me weekly after the bone was healed to work on my flexion and extension. Both surgery and rehab were free at the point of use, and the only paperwork I completed was my pre-operative release forms.
Compare that to another freak accident I had while living in Boston in my 20s. I spilled a large cup of hot tea on myself, suffered second degree scald burns, and had to be taken to the hospital in an ambulance. In the pain and chaos of the ER admission, I accidentally put my primary insurance down as my secondary and vice versa. It took me the better part of six months to sort out the ensuing paperwork and billing confusion, and even with two policies, I still paid several hundred dollars in out-of-pocket expenses.
... one big reason why Universal Health Care is sane - time and worries saved
A good article here comparing what it's like.
As someone who suffers from chronic illness, is incredibly clumsy and accident-prone, and has two young children, I spend an inordinate amount of time in doctors' offices and hospitals. ... I recently opted to switch to a new provider, whose premiums are a more modest but still eye-watering 7% of my salary.
... one big reason why Universal Health Care is sane - time and worries saved
A good article here comparing what it's like.
Did you or your husband have to pay anything at all, other than what is assumed for healthcare in your taxes, in your UK care? Besides the several hundred dollars in out-of-pocket US expenses, what else did you have to pay (insurance premiums, etc.) and what type of coverage did you have (employer?)?
seems like she switched to Kaiser Permanente, which is about as close as we get to the U.K. model here (full integration of the payer and the providers).
It’s a small point, but your care in England was not “free”. Someone paid for it.
Not me. The linked article's author says it was "free at the point of use" and there was no paperwork (other than pre-op release forms).
So, with Kaiser Permanente, there are no bills to be paid? You waive your Kaiser Permanente card and provider gets paid directly by Kaiser Permanente without anything on your part? (Or say you just pay a copay at the point of service and there is no more paperwork to figure out ... if anything goes wrong?)
Which noone denies.
So, with Kaiser Permanente, there are no bills to be paid? You waive your Kaiser Permanente card and provider gets paid directly by Kaiser Permanente without anything on your part? (Or say you just pay a copay at the point of service and there is no more paperwork to figure out ... if anything goes wrong?)
It’s a small point, but your care in England was not “free”. Someone paid for it.
... one big reason why Universal Health Care is sane - time and worries saved
A good article here comparing what it's like.
"That broad public support for reform was crucial. Britain's NHS system was very nearly defeated by opposing interests when it was introduced in the 1940s. It was initially opposed by the municipal and voluntary authorities, who controlled the 3,000 hospitals which Health Secretary Aneurin Bevan sought to bring under national administration, by the various Royal Colleges of surgeons and specialists, and by British Medical Association (BMA), the professional body representing the vast majority of the nation's general practitioners, who stood to lose control of their private practices and become state employees."
"Besides the several hundred dollars in out-of-pocket US expenses, what else did you have to pay (insurance premiums, etc.) and what type of coverage did you have (employer?)?"
Please clarify as I did not perceive a complete answer to my second two-part question above.
... out West in particular Kaiser has a closed system--they own the physician groups and the hospitals and you've got to have their insurance product to get in the door. So the premium is more like buying a subscription fee to their system than the way insurance functions when it's distinct from the providers.
It’s a small point, but your care in England was not “free”. Someone paid for it.
By the way, the UK's National Health Service is a fully socialized government owned and operated system.
Private sector healthcare is available, and insurance policies to pay for it, but the NHS is fully socialist.
The closest thing we have to the NHS in the United States is the VA Healthcare System, also a fully socialized and government owned and operated network.
Why does private sector healthcare exist, when the government is providing healthcare for everyone?
Right, which most people would use as evidence against socialized medicine.
Are you a veteran? Do you use the VA?
... one big reason why Universal Health Care is sane - time and worries saved
A good article here comparing what it's like.
If you want anecdotes about the VA, go here and scroll down to the map. I read about 20 of them, I'd say 18 were negative, many were horrifying.
Someone's health care was sacrificed for your care. That's how universal coverage saves money.
If you want anecdotes about the VA, go here and scroll down to the map. I read about 20 of them, I'd say 18 were negative, many were horrifying.
It’s a small point, but your care in England was not “free”. Someone paid for it.
I asked if you are a veteran and if you use the VA system,
In some cities the va hospital is the best hospital in that town
My one anecdote would be weak evidence whether it was positive or not.
In fact, despite the many issues with the British NHS, Brits STILL overwhelmingly demand that the British government continue to maintain it, and not switch it to a private sector system.
Their big complaint is that Parliament is starving it of funds.
Also, if you're very wealthy and simply wish to skip to the front of the line, you can pay in cash for your own private doctor and clinic.
So what. Many Russians still support Stalin. Do you consider that to be strong evidence that Stalin was, on net, beneficial to the country?
That's an easy problem to solve - just raise taxes, and tell them the money is for the NHS. They should be happy for the tax increase, because their taxes will be buying what they supposedly want.
So it's a two-tier system. Doesn't sound very egalitarian.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?