7 ms·

“ Mr. Kim owns his place in the building, bought for $30,000 after he sold his house in a better neighborhood 20 years ago to help pay for his late wife’s cance

“ Mr. Kim owns his place in the building, bought for $30,000 after he sold his house in a better neighborhood 20 years ago to help pay for his late wife’s cancer bills.” How does that fit into universal health care?

refurb 7y ago
Indeed. "Universal healthcare" in some countries doesn't mean "we'll pay for everything including the latest and greatest cancer drugs."
- redis_mlc 7y ago
  > the latest and greatest cancer drugs. My understanding is that cancer drugs are considered to be experimental, so there's no "latest and greatest" with any guarantee. Also, US doctors usually prefer to not get cancer treatment when interviewed, since they know "how the sausage is made."
  - sgift 7y ago
    > Also, US doctors usually prefer to not get cancer treatment when interviewed, since they know "how the sausage is made." I would like to ask for a source please. Maybe they don't want cancer treatment in very special circumstances (e.g. cancer with extreme low survival rates, new experimental drug with very painful side effects), but in general and for most cancers? That sounds rather outlandish.
  - Gatsky 7y ago
    This comment is wrong twice.
zpallin 7y ago
Universal healthcare does not mean "free healthcare". What it means is that all people have equal access to healthcare, the kind that would otherwise be provided by everyone having private healthcare insurance, such as what would need to happen in the US. The intent is that this would be more affordable for the average person than not having a universal healthcare system. Of course, affordability is not a guarantee for all treatments, regardless of which healthcare system you agree with. It seems this is the problem for the Kim family. Even in a universal healthcare system, things like chemotherapy and cancer surgery might still cost too much for people who earn below living-wage.
- ALittleLight 7y ago
  How is it universal care if some people can't get care because they can't afford it? By that logic the US has universal care - any legal treatment your doctor wants to give you and you can afford it, anyone can get.
  - dba7dba 7y ago
    Below blog posting is old but one of the best info available in English on the Korean Healthcare system. http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2010/01/healthcare-system-in-korea.html http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2010/01/healthcare-system-in-... Some may consider the fact that Korean national health insurance only covers around 55 percent of the total healthcare cost to be problematic. This may be true if one takes the idea of guaranteed socialized medicine seriously. But for fiscal conservatives with some measure of compassion for the plight of the uninsured, this could be an attractive balance. While corruption is definitely still a problem with Korean government, the NHIC is surprisingly efficient and well-run. It does a great job squeezing out maximum value out of the tax it receives.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - zpallin 7y ago
    Universal Healthcare does not guarantee affordability, only access. You must be thinking of "Free Universal Healthcare". And no, the US does not have it. You can be denied insurance and you won't be able to see most doctors because of it. Some ERs won't even treat you without insurance, especially if it's an expensive procedure.
    - justicezyx 7y ago
      > Universal Healthcare does not guarantee affordability I think we have a word for that: affordable health care. Universal Healthcare necessarily covers affordability: """Universal health care is a system that provides quality medical services to all citizens. The federal government offers it to everyone regardless of their ability to pay. """ -- From https://www.thebalance.com/universal-health-care-4156211 https://www.thebalance.com/universal-health-care-4156211
muzani 7y ago
I live in a country with good free* ($0.25) healthcare, but it's not limitless. The waiting lines can be months long, especially common problems like cancer. Sometimes it's not just the medical bills, but a caretaker might have to quit their job and need money for that, or nearby accommodation if they're out of town. My mother got full cancer treatment for free*, but the wards were always full, and she stayed at home so someone from out of town could have a place to stay. The hospitals didn't have the right to force patients to go home though; they just asked nicely if they wouldn't mind staying elsewhere.
akiselev 7y ago
Universal healthcare means that any required medical treatment is free at the point of use but it does not usually pay for every possible quality of life intervention like a part/full time caregiver. Given the side effects from cancer treatment, I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Kim had to go to work but didn't want to leave his wife at home, weak and helpless, for the duration of his absence. Even if universal healthcare paid for a part time caregiver, they likely would not have been there most of the day, requiring quite a bit of money to pay for a private provider.
- anonsivalley652 7y ago
  Caregiving, in-home nursing care, rehabilitation and long-term care (assisted living/nursing home/hospice) should be provided by a different social safety net department because of it's specialized and complex nature that also requires licensure and auditing (making sure elderly and disabled aren't abused or neglected). Single-payer, universal healthcare should also include (all but cosmetic and elective procedures): - prescriptions - mental care including therapy, psychiatry, rehab and commitment - dental care - vision care and prescription glasses - hearing aids (avg cost is $3000 USD) - mobility and safety aids for disabled and elderly - gym memberships for people below a certain income level - smoking, drinking and substance abuse intervention, counseling and cessation assistance (medications, tools, relocation assistance) - weight-loss for obesity/significantly overweight with effective, tailored, holistic approaches
  - Hydraulix989 7y ago
    Hearing aids are insanely overpriced for being a glorified microphone and earphone. $30 in parts.
    - mschuster91 7y ago
      It's not the parts that are expensive, it's the R&D and the initial and ongoing adjustments that drive up the price.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
moksly 7y ago
Even in countries like Denmark we’re forced to deny certain cancer treatments because the cost of their medicine is so high it would cripple our entire healthcare system to buy a few patients 6 more months to live. You can debate the morality of such a discussion, or how the private medicine industry is allowed to charge these prices, but the effect is that some cancer treatments are only available through private insurance or personal wealth, even in Scandinavian countries where we are know for our equal access healthcare.
- DanBC 7y ago
  > to buy a few patients 6 more months to live. More like two weeks, and with a lot of painful side effects. https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2097 https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2097
  - alexgmcm 7y ago
    Yeah, my SO is a nurse in paediatric oncology and has seen people from poorer countries sell everything they have in order to bring their child to Western hospitals in the futile hope of treatment. It's really sad and seems almost exploitative. They often get ripped off by private clinics in their home countries as well. At some point we need to say these people aren't in a fit state of mind to make these financial decisions. (Who would be? When the life of their own child seems to be at stake?) It's such a sad situation.
    - moksly 7y ago
      I sincerely hope the European response to medicine prices that are so high that they cripple national economies will to set max prices or to completely nationalise production. Hopefully we’ll find a way to throw some jail time after the people responsible.
      - cwilkes 7y ago
        What about jailing doctors or nurses that refuse to work for whatever salary you deem is appropriate?
danans 7y ago
Every system has its point where it no longer can pay for care, especially when the procedures have a questionable ability to provide an extension to life at high quality, even the US system. The difference is that on the US vast swathes don't have basic healthcare, which can often reduce the rate of complexities that require extreme treatment measures, like treating cancers early before they advance to a terminal state.

refurb 7y ago

Indeed. "Universal healthcare" in some countries doesn't mean "we'll pay for everything including the latest and greatest cancer drugs."

redis_mlc 7y ago
> the latest and greatest cancer drugs. My understanding is that cancer drugs are considered to be experimental, so there's no "latest and greatest" with any guarantee. Also, US doctors usually prefer to not get cancer treatment when interviewed, since they know "how the sausage is made."
- sgift 7y ago
  > Also, US doctors usually prefer to not get cancer treatment when interviewed, since they know "how the sausage is made." I would like to ask for a source please. Maybe they don't want cancer treatment in very special circumstances (e.g. cancer with extreme low survival rates, new experimental drug with very painful side effects), but in general and for most cancers? That sounds rather outlandish.
- Gatsky 7y ago
  This comment is wrong twice.

zpallin 7y ago

Universal healthcare does not mean "free healthcare". What it means is that all people have equal access to healthcare, the kind that would otherwise be provided by everyone having private healthcare insurance, such as what would need to happen in the US. The intent is that this would be more affordable for the average person than not having a universal healthcare system. Of course, affordability is not a guarantee for all treatments, regardless of which healthcare system you agree with. It seems this is the problem for the Kim family. Even in a universal healthcare system, things like chemotherapy and cancer surgery might still cost too much for people who earn below living-wage.

ALittleLight 7y ago
How is it universal care if some people can't get care because they can't afford it? By that logic the US has universal care - any legal treatment your doctor wants to give you and you can afford it, anyone can get.
- dba7dba 7y ago
  Below blog posting is old but one of the best info available in English on the Korean Healthcare system. http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2010/01/healthcare-system-in-korea.html http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2010/01/healthcare-system-in-... Some may consider the fact that Korean national health insurance only covers around 55 percent of the total healthcare cost to be problematic. This may be true if one takes the idea of guaranteed socialized medicine seriously. But for fiscal conservatives with some measure of compassion for the plight of the uninsured, this could be an attractive balance. While corruption is definitely still a problem with Korean government, the NHIC is surprisingly efficient and well-run. It does a great job squeezing out maximum value out of the tax it receives.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- zpallin 7y ago
  Universal Healthcare does not guarantee affordability, only access. You must be thinking of "Free Universal Healthcare". And no, the US does not have it. You can be denied insurance and you won't be able to see most doctors because of it. Some ERs won't even treat you without insurance, especially if it's an expensive procedure.
  - justicezyx 7y ago
    > Universal Healthcare does not guarantee affordability I think we have a word for that: affordable health care. Universal Healthcare necessarily covers affordability: """Universal health care is a system that provides quality medical services to all citizens. The federal government offers it to everyone regardless of their ability to pay. """ -- From https://www.thebalance.com/universal-health-care-4156211 https://www.thebalance.com/universal-health-care-4156211

muzani 7y ago

I live in a country with good free* ($0.25) healthcare, but it's not limitless. The waiting lines can be months long, especially common problems like cancer. Sometimes it's not just the medical bills, but a caretaker might have to quit their job and need money for that, or nearby accommodation if they're out of town. My mother got full cancer treatment for free*, but the wards were always full, and she stayed at home so someone from out of town could have a place to stay. The hospitals didn't have the right to force patients to go home though; they just asked nicely if they wouldn't mind staying elsewhere.

akiselev 7y ago

Universal healthcare means that any required medical treatment is free at the point of use but it does not usually pay for every possible quality of life intervention like a part/full time caregiver. Given the side effects from cancer treatment, I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Kim had to go to work but didn't want to leave his wife at home, weak and helpless, for the duration of his absence. Even if universal healthcare paid for a part time caregiver, they likely would not have been there most of the day, requiring quite a bit of money to pay for a private provider.

anonsivalley652 7y ago
Caregiving, in-home nursing care, rehabilitation and long-term care (assisted living/nursing home/hospice) should be provided by a different social safety net department because of it's specialized and complex nature that also requires licensure and auditing (making sure elderly and disabled aren't abused or neglected). Single-payer, universal healthcare should also include (all but cosmetic and elective procedures): - prescriptions - mental care including therapy, psychiatry, rehab and commitment - dental care - vision care and prescription glasses - hearing aids (avg cost is $3000 USD) - mobility and safety aids for disabled and elderly - gym memberships for people below a certain income level - smoking, drinking and substance abuse intervention, counseling and cessation assistance (medications, tools, relocation assistance) - weight-loss for obesity/significantly overweight with effective, tailored, holistic approaches
- Hydraulix989 7y ago
  Hearing aids are insanely overpriced for being a glorified microphone and earphone. $30 in parts.
  - mschuster91 7y ago
    It's not the parts that are expensive, it's the R&D and the initial and ongoing adjustments that drive up the price.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago

moksly 7y ago

Even in countries like Denmark we’re forced to deny certain cancer treatments because the cost of their medicine is so high it would cripple our entire healthcare system to buy a few patients 6 more months to live. You can debate the morality of such a discussion, or how the private medicine industry is allowed to charge these prices, but the effect is that some cancer treatments are only available through private insurance or personal wealth, even in Scandinavian countries where we are know for our equal access healthcare.

DanBC 7y ago
> to buy a few patients 6 more months to live. More like two weeks, and with a lot of painful side effects. https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2097 https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2097
- alexgmcm 7y ago
  Yeah, my SO is a nurse in paediatric oncology and has seen people from poorer countries sell everything they have in order to bring their child to Western hospitals in the futile hope of treatment. It's really sad and seems almost exploitative. They often get ripped off by private clinics in their home countries as well. At some point we need to say these people aren't in a fit state of mind to make these financial decisions. (Who would be? When the life of their own child seems to be at stake?) It's such a sad situation.
  - moksly 7y ago
    I sincerely hope the European response to medicine prices that are so high that they cripple national economies will to set max prices or to completely nationalise production. Hopefully we’ll find a way to throw some jail time after the people responsible.
    - cwilkes 7y ago
      What about jailing doctors or nurses that refuse to work for whatever salary you deem is appropriate?

danans 7y ago

Every system has its point where it no longer can pay for care, especially when the procedures have a questionable ability to provide an extension to life at high quality, even the US system. The difference is that on the US vast swathes don't have basic healthcare, which can often reduce the rate of complexities that require extreme treatment measures, like treating cancers early before they advance to a terminal state.