3 ms·

You are downvoted because you generalize your experience to every country except a vague set of 5... What you are saying is simply not true in most of Europe.

by zwaps 8y ago

You are downvoted because you generalize your experience to every country except a vague set of 5... What you are saying is simply not true in most of Europe. Case in point, last year I have been treated for some serious health issue that would have immediately bankrupted me in the USA, forever. I was in the network of Charité Berlin, one of the biggest hospitals in Europe. The treatment and care was overall fantastic. Yes, usually it seems the universal healthcare moves slowly. But once I was diagnosed, things _kicked_ in, let me tell you. The operation was brought on within days, insurance immediately got out of the way, the aftercare and radiation was scheduled immediately - things just went automatic. There were no 5-people hospital rooms and of course every room had a bath and toilet - what are you talking about? The facilities and rooms were all top notch. Moreover, the doctors involved were Professors and otherwise top experts in the entire field, treating hundreds of tough cases every year. And you know what I payed? Nothing. Again, in the USA, all the operations, radiation treatment, medicine, expensive machinery used and months in the hospital... It would have cost literal millions. I probably simply would have DIED because I could never afford it. Here, however, I had close to the optimal (and positive!) experience that one could have in such a situation. So yes, if you have a common cold, you will probably get less "treatment" on public than on private insurance. But - from my experience - when you get seriously ill, the amount of ressources, personell and technology that hospitals like Charité can and will bring to bear to save your life, at no cost to you, borders on ridiculous. Seriously I often felt uncomfortable because of the amount of care. Those people seriously wanted to make sure I don't die, even though I am not important, don't have money and certainly not private insurance. This includes hospital staff AND the people from the public insurance. For the latter, I expected a lot of resistance to the cost - like a private insurance would do. Them trying to minimize the treatment. Instead, the people at the insurance immediately "stamped" everything, and even me asking timidly about the costs was met with non-comprehension. It was pretty clear, when things get serious, the public insurance officials care about your life, no matter how much you pay. Sorry but I feel rather passionate about this, and might I even say that I actually prefer public insurance for that reason. No where else would I have been important enough to live.

jki275 8y ago
You might qualify your argument by clarifying that you're basing your argument on the idea that you wouldn't have had private insurance in the US and that you believe there is no healthcare in the US outside of private insurance. The first is probably incorrect unless you're totally unemployed as most employers in the US provide private health insurance, and the second is truly incorrect as the vast majority of those who are not employed are covered by things like medicaid. We don't generally just let people die in the US because they don't have health insurance, and in fact hospitals in the US write off millions of dollars in care every year because the bills simply aren't paid -- but they still provide the care, simply shifting the cost to the government and to those of us who do pay the bills (and by extension our insurance companies). Most of the "facts" people believe about healthcare in the US are badly uninformed and based in the mostly false arguments of those who wish, at all costs, to abolish private healthcare in the US and replace it with medicaid because of their political ideology.
- zwaps 8y ago
  As far as I can see, no private insurance would take me - it is a clear loss. Furthermore, it does not seem I would qualify for Medicaid nor Medicare (from reading the wikipedia article). As for employment insurance - in the USA I would certainly not be employed except the company is uncharacteristically nice. Because in the USA, you can kick anyone out, especially someone who just spends months in the hospital. Or is that not true? So how do you imagine I would be insured then? Again, I have to ask because I don't know, but are you saying all the news reports of where exactly the above happens to people are fake? There were many reports where people DID HAVE some insurance by their employers, but when it came to a long and expensive treatment, insurance refused to pay, or they lost their job very fast. Would you say these issues do not occur, or occur very infrequently? Are the people on this board, who say they are afraid of losing their insurance coverage due to job-loss wrong? If you propose that I get treated and the costs are written off, that still means I would have to declare bankruptcy and ruin my live further. Because it's not that I do not have any money, or minimal savings. It's just that the extend, complexity and length of the treatment leads to costs that can not be payed by a normal person, including pretty much any normal percentage of the costs. And then, personally, I'd also doubt that I would actually receive that treatment if I can not pay. You say people you don't let die, but this is a multi-year treatment and it would be apparent after the first week that I can not pay for it. There is a difference in long term health and survival by the quality and frequency of long term treatments over many years. Would a private, for business organization really do this for my benefit? Like, experts would treat me for years in a top institution in the country, even though I pay nothing? Really? Or would they rather just do the minimum to get rid of any immediate danger and then release me? And where do you see the advantage? Here, I still got the best treatment you could ask for (top experts, newest equipment, good facilities), and I was able to continue my life without being bankrupt.

by zwaps 8y ago

jki275 8y ago

You might qualify your argument by clarifying that you're basing your argument on the idea that you wouldn't have had private insurance in the US and that you believe there is no healthcare in the US outside of private insurance. The first is probably incorrect unless you're totally unemployed as most employers in the US provide private health insurance, and the second is truly incorrect as the vast majority of those who are not employed are covered by things like medicaid. We don't generally just let people die in the US because they don't have health insurance, and in fact hospitals in the US write off millions of dollars in care every year because the bills simply aren't paid -- but they still provide the care, simply shifting the cost to the government and to those of us who do pay the bills (and by extension our insurance companies). Most of the "facts" people believe about healthcare in the US are badly uninformed and based in the mostly false arguments of those who wish, at all costs, to abolish private healthcare in the US and replace it with medicaid because of their political ideology.

zwaps 8y ago
As far as I can see, no private insurance would take me - it is a clear loss. Furthermore, it does not seem I would qualify for Medicaid nor Medicare (from reading the wikipedia article). As for employment insurance - in the USA I would certainly not be employed except the company is uncharacteristically nice. Because in the USA, you can kick anyone out, especially someone who just spends months in the hospital. Or is that not true? So how do you imagine I would be insured then? Again, I have to ask because I don't know, but are you saying all the news reports of where exactly the above happens to people are fake? There were many reports where people DID HAVE some insurance by their employers, but when it came to a long and expensive treatment, insurance refused to pay, or they lost their job very fast. Would you say these issues do not occur, or occur very infrequently? Are the people on this board, who say they are afraid of losing their insurance coverage due to job-loss wrong? If you propose that I get treated and the costs are written off, that still means I would have to declare bankruptcy and ruin my live further. Because it's not that I do not have any money, or minimal savings. It's just that the extend, complexity and length of the treatment leads to costs that can not be payed by a normal person, including pretty much any normal percentage of the costs. And then, personally, I'd also doubt that I would actually receive that treatment if I can not pay. You say people you don't let die, but this is a multi-year treatment and it would be apparent after the first week that I can not pay for it. There is a difference in long term health and survival by the quality and frequency of long term treatments over many years. Would a private, for business organization really do this for my benefit? Like, experts would treat me for years in a top institution in the country, even though I pay nothing? Really? Or would they rather just do the minimum to get rid of any immediate danger and then release me? And where do you see the advantage? Here, I still got the best treatment you could ask for (top experts, newest equipment, good facilities), and I was able to continue my life without being bankrupt.