5 ms·

This always seems such a strange view to me, like you are ignoring that the us is both the only rich western country without single payer and also a country wit

This always seems such a strange view to me, like you are ignoring that the us is both the only rich western country without single payer and also a country with an infamously bad healthcare situation.

stupidhn 9y ago
>This always seems such a strange view to me Well as someone from Canada, living in a provincial capital, who can't get a doctor (for years), I'd say I agree with the OP. I guess the family doctor waiting list I've been on for two years and counting is simply a "bogeyman".
- Kluny 9y ago
  Are you talking about Victoria? Because I hear lots of complaints from people living here that they can't get a GP, waits are awful, etc etc. But I pretty much always get in to see a doctor within 45 minutes if I drop in, and every time I actually try to access healthcare it seems to work much better than my friends led me to believe it would.
  - stupidhn 9y ago
    >Are you talking about Victoria? No, but it's a problem coast to coast, apparently. >every time I actually try to access healthcare it seems to work much better than my friends led me to believe it would. You sound healthy. Not everyone is so lucky.
    - health_in_usa 9y ago
      I'm curious about this - why are other people able to get doctors while you are unable to (asking in utmost earnestness)? Also, it seems that your condition isn't life-threatening (considering you're posting here and all). While the average, generally healthy, person will likely need to wait longer, they at least have access to care in developed countries outside the US. The final point I would add is that private healthcare is still available, even if only available in a different country. I think that's a reasonable trade off- most people can get care readily, while those who need more can pay more to get more timely care.
      - dagw 9y ago
        There is huge span between life-threatening and healthy.
frubar 9y ago
Switzerland doesn't have single pay either and they're definitely rich and western. I agree with the rest of what you said though.
- dv_dt 9y ago
  But they do have government drug price controls, and tightly regulate health insurers... And they do have single payer in a sense. The consumer pays the doctor and is reimbursed by a health insurer. Something that pretty much seems like it might not work well in the US, without very tight reins on the insurer reimbursement timeline and approval.
taejo 9y ago
The US may be the only rich western country without universal health care, but it is by no means the only one without single-payer. Germany, for example, has private health insurance[0] but everyone has to have insurance, public insurers have to accept everyone, and employers have to pay part of the cost. [0] There's a distinction between "public" (gesetzlich) and "private" (privat) health insurance, but neither is run by the government. Public insurers are private organizations. The difference is in what is covered (all public insurers provide essentially the same cover), and how they are funded (the cost of public insurance depends on income, while private insurers can set their own prices). There is an income threshold below which one is required to take public insurance; private insurance is seen by many as kind of a scam. Private insurance is generally cheaper for young people, but one can't easily switch from private to public, so you'd better be sure your income will continue to be high as you get old and premiums go up.
- germanier 9y ago
  The public insurers are not private organizations. The reason they are called "gesetzlich" is exactly that: they exist by law. You are right in that they are not run by the government (be it state or federal) but are their own entity. They are however self-governed and currently hold elections for their board that undergo the same scrutiny as any other public election. They are public entities in full right. Not paying your fees has the same consequences as not paying taxes and they have more far-reaching powers than a private organization ever could.

stupidhn 9y ago

>This always seems such a strange view to me Well as someone from Canada, living in a provincial capital, who can't get a doctor (for years), I'd say I agree with the OP. I guess the family doctor waiting list I've been on for two years and counting is simply a "bogeyman".

Kluny 9y ago
Are you talking about Victoria? Because I hear lots of complaints from people living here that they can't get a GP, waits are awful, etc etc. But I pretty much always get in to see a doctor within 45 minutes if I drop in, and every time I actually try to access healthcare it seems to work much better than my friends led me to believe it would.
- stupidhn 9y ago
  >Are you talking about Victoria? No, but it's a problem coast to coast, apparently. >every time I actually try to access healthcare it seems to work much better than my friends led me to believe it would. You sound healthy. Not everyone is so lucky.
  - health_in_usa 9y ago
    I'm curious about this - why are other people able to get doctors while you are unable to (asking in utmost earnestness)? Also, it seems that your condition isn't life-threatening (considering you're posting here and all). While the average, generally healthy, person will likely need to wait longer, they at least have access to care in developed countries outside the US. The final point I would add is that private healthcare is still available, even if only available in a different country. I think that's a reasonable trade off- most people can get care readily, while those who need more can pay more to get more timely care.
    - dagw 9y ago
      There is huge span between life-threatening and healthy.

frubar 9y ago

Switzerland doesn't have single pay either and they're definitely rich and western. I agree with the rest of what you said though.

dv_dt 9y ago
But they do have government drug price controls, and tightly regulate health insurers... And they do have single payer in a sense. The consumer pays the doctor and is reimbursed by a health insurer. Something that pretty much seems like it might not work well in the US, without very tight reins on the insurer reimbursement timeline and approval.

taejo 9y ago

The US may be the only rich western country without universal health care, but it is by no means the only one without single-payer. Germany, for example, has private health insurance[0] but everyone has to have insurance, public insurers have to accept everyone, and employers have to pay part of the cost. [0] There's a distinction between "public" (gesetzlich) and "private" (privat) health insurance, but neither is run by the government. Public insurers are private organizations. The difference is in what is covered (all public insurers provide essentially the same cover), and how they are funded (the cost of public insurance depends on income, while private insurers can set their own prices). There is an income threshold below which one is required to take public insurance; private insurance is seen by many as kind of a scam. Private insurance is generally cheaper for young people, but one can't easily switch from private to public, so you'd better be sure your income will continue to be high as you get old and premiums go up.

germanier 9y ago
The public insurers are not private organizations. The reason they are called "gesetzlich" is exactly that: they exist by law. You are right in that they are not run by the government (be it state or federal) but are their own entity. They are however self-governed and currently hold elections for their board that undergo the same scrutiny as any other public election. They are public entities in full right. Not paying your fees has the same consequences as not paying taxes and they have more far-reaching powers than a private organization ever could.