4 ms·

Are there any measures of how America does compared to Europe if you only count Americans that have good health insurance? It seems to me that many people who

Are there any measures of how America does compared to Europe if you only count Americans that have good health insurance? It seems to me that many people who are opposed to socialized medicine don't necessarily disagree that it would give the poor better care; rather they fear that it will result in them receiving worse care.

reasonablemann 8y ago
Would also be important to include the number of Europeans that are bankrupted by rejected insurance claims.
grecy 8y ago
> Are there any measures of how America does compared to Europe if you only count Americans that have good health insurance? Anecdotally, I'd say they do crap. Friends outside LA are upper-middle class. Extremely good health insurance for the last 20+ years. Had a baby, emergency C-section. Less than 12 hours later they were told they must move hospital or else pay the $60,000 per day out of pocket because their insurance wouldn't cover it anymore. They had to drive themselves, in their own car, less than 12 hours after an emergency C-Section, with the infant. Of of this after paying through the nose for 20+ years for excellent health insurance. As an Australia/Canadian this is barbaric, and utterly unacceptable.
- kodablah 8y ago
  I think the commenter was asking about quality regardless of cost, especially for the upper tier.
  - grecy 8y ago
    Yes, and I was saying the quality is very low.
  - tialaramex 8y ago
    It's going to be very hard to usefully measure, because it'll vary hugely by personal experience, where you are, what services you needed, etcetera. I can't imagine how any experiences I have with the NHS could be better privately, I have enough money that I could afford a private system if I had any idea why or how that could be better, so I'd be genuinely torn (I support the existence of the NHS and one way to kill something like the NHS is to encourage everybody who can afford to go privately to leave the system) but it never comes up at all. Not everything is perfect, but the less-than-perfect things don't feel like private healthcare could fix them e.g. At home I live near a hospital, because I live in a city, but where I grew up there isn't a nearby hospital. Private doesn't fix that, under the US system I might be even further from an "in network" option, and even in a sane system the private hospitals would be in similar places to those for a universal system, it doesn't help. I had cancer years back. Nothing about this seemed awful except the "having cancer" part which I'm sure private healthcare doesn't get rid of. Curing cancer is urgent so there was no waiting for treatment, the staff were competent, my oncology consultants were the exact sort of "no nonsense" people I'd have picked if I had a free choice. The hospital was nice. A+++ would recommend (except cancer, don't get cancer) Once upon a time I moved to a new city and friends were all like "Oh my god, get a private dentist, ugh, it's just impossible to get an NHS dentist". And being contrary I was like "Huh, I wonder how impossible it is?" and the answer was "You phone this number and they assign you one" and I'm still with the same dental practice twenty years later. In fact my specific dentist left last year and I was like "Oh, maybe he went private and I could follow?" but nope, he retired, I feel old. His replacement is young enough to be my daughter. But she's already nagging me about stuff just like he did, so that's fine. I had a scary moment in a distant city last year, I had found a lump and was experiencing peripheral neuropathy. I went to an Urgent Care clinic and rather than examine me they booked me into my own GP for the next day and I went home early. In hindsight they should have examined me, because my GP was like "The clinic nurse could have told you this is not what you were worried it might be". But, would private healthcare have done the examination? That comes down to personal judgement by a clinic nurse, and money wouldn't change that.
jeromeparadis 8y ago
> ...rather they fear that it will result in them receiving worse care. In Canada, we have free healthcare. If you have the money you still can go private if you think you'll get a better care. But I guarantee you won't go private for hearth surgery. There's not market for it because the care you get is already the best in the public sector.
- tdhoot 8y ago
  I'm Canadian and as far as I know you don't have a private option in most provinces. The only option is to travel to the United States and pay for it yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Canada#Restrictions_on_privately_funded_healthcare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Canada#Restricti...
  - refurb 8y ago
    This is correct. Canada's single payer system means doctors can't work in both the public and private systems. They have to choose one over the other. There has been plenty of efforts put into allowing private clinics outside of the public system, but they have all been shutdown.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      It should also be noted that this arrangement in Canada is not typical of other countries with universal healthcare. There's more than one way to skin this particular cat; Canada just gets unduly much attention in the debate because of its proximity, and the "Canadians waiting in endless lines come to US for treatment" conservative meme. On the other hand, one thing that is usually ignored about Canadian healthcare when it's discussed in US, is the fact that it's run by provinces. Feds are involved, and most federal money that goes to healthcare comes with strings attached wrt how the resulting healthcare system should look; but ultimately the decision of how (and whether) to run healthcare is down to provinces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Health_Act#History:_Federalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Health_Act#History:_Fed... Furthermore, that system didn't come up all at once - a single province tried it first, and it had proven popular enough that other provinces gradually adopted it. Once it was sufficiently widespread, the federal government stepped in. Given that federalism in US is more developed than in Canada, I don't understand why this isn't the approach advocated by most adherents here. If Saskatchewan could organize healthcare all by itself back in the day, surely so can California, New York etc.

reasonablemann 8y ago

Would also be important to include the number of Europeans that are bankrupted by rejected insurance claims.

grecy 8y ago

> Are there any measures of how America does compared to Europe if you only count Americans that have good health insurance? Anecdotally, I'd say they do crap. Friends outside LA are upper-middle class. Extremely good health insurance for the last 20+ years. Had a baby, emergency C-section. Less than 12 hours later they were told they must move hospital or else pay the $60,000 per day out of pocket because their insurance wouldn't cover it anymore. They had to drive themselves, in their own car, less than 12 hours after an emergency C-Section, with the infant. Of of this after paying through the nose for 20+ years for excellent health insurance. As an Australia/Canadian this is barbaric, and utterly unacceptable.

kodablah 8y ago
I think the commenter was asking about quality regardless of cost, especially for the upper tier.
- grecy 8y ago
  Yes, and I was saying the quality is very low.
- tialaramex 8y ago
  It's going to be very hard to usefully measure, because it'll vary hugely by personal experience, where you are, what services you needed, etcetera. I can't imagine how any experiences I have with the NHS could be better privately, I have enough money that I could afford a private system if I had any idea why or how that could be better, so I'd be genuinely torn (I support the existence of the NHS and one way to kill something like the NHS is to encourage everybody who can afford to go privately to leave the system) but it never comes up at all. Not everything is perfect, but the less-than-perfect things don't feel like private healthcare could fix them e.g. At home I live near a hospital, because I live in a city, but where I grew up there isn't a nearby hospital. Private doesn't fix that, under the US system I might be even further from an "in network" option, and even in a sane system the private hospitals would be in similar places to those for a universal system, it doesn't help. I had cancer years back. Nothing about this seemed awful except the "having cancer" part which I'm sure private healthcare doesn't get rid of. Curing cancer is urgent so there was no waiting for treatment, the staff were competent, my oncology consultants were the exact sort of "no nonsense" people I'd have picked if I had a free choice. The hospital was nice. A+++ would recommend (except cancer, don't get cancer) Once upon a time I moved to a new city and friends were all like "Oh my god, get a private dentist, ugh, it's just impossible to get an NHS dentist". And being contrary I was like "Huh, I wonder how impossible it is?" and the answer was "You phone this number and they assign you one" and I'm still with the same dental practice twenty years later. In fact my specific dentist left last year and I was like "Oh, maybe he went private and I could follow?" but nope, he retired, I feel old. His replacement is young enough to be my daughter. But she's already nagging me about stuff just like he did, so that's fine. I had a scary moment in a distant city last year, I had found a lump and was experiencing peripheral neuropathy. I went to an Urgent Care clinic and rather than examine me they booked me into my own GP for the next day and I went home early. In hindsight they should have examined me, because my GP was like "The clinic nurse could have told you this is not what you were worried it might be". But, would private healthcare have done the examination? That comes down to personal judgement by a clinic nurse, and money wouldn't change that.

jeromeparadis 8y ago

> ...rather they fear that it will result in them receiving worse care. In Canada, we have free healthcare. If you have the money you still can go private if you think you'll get a better care. But I guarantee you won't go private for hearth surgery. There's not market for it because the care you get is already the best in the public sector.

tdhoot 8y ago
I'm Canadian and as far as I know you don't have a private option in most provinces. The only option is to travel to the United States and pay for it yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Canada#Restrictions_on_privately_funded_healthcare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Canada#Restricti...
- refurb 8y ago
  This is correct. Canada's single payer system means doctors can't work in both the public and private systems. They have to choose one over the other. There has been plenty of efforts put into allowing private clinics outside of the public system, but they have all been shutdown.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    It should also be noted that this arrangement in Canada is not typical of other countries with universal healthcare. There's more than one way to skin this particular cat; Canada just gets unduly much attention in the debate because of its proximity, and the "Canadians waiting in endless lines come to US for treatment" conservative meme. On the other hand, one thing that is usually ignored about Canadian healthcare when it's discussed in US, is the fact that it's run by provinces. Feds are involved, and most federal money that goes to healthcare comes with strings attached wrt how the resulting healthcare system should look; but ultimately the decision of how (and whether) to run healthcare is down to provinces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Health_Act#History:_Federalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Health_Act#History:_Fed... Furthermore, that system didn't come up all at once - a single province tried it first, and it had proven popular enough that other provinces gradually adopted it. Once it was sufficiently widespread, the federal government stepped in. Given that federalism in US is more developed than in Canada, I don't understand why this isn't the approach advocated by most adherents here. If Saskatchewan could organize healthcare all by itself back in the day, surely so can California, New York etc.