3 ms·

I suppose you are joking. NHS in the UK has 6M folks on waiting lists for things like cataract surgery, knee replacements etc. The wait time is in range of 18

I suppose you are joking. NHS in the UK has 6M folks on waiting lists for things like cataract surgery, knee replacements etc. The wait time is in range of 18 weeks for many and for 300K+ > 52 weeks. Private providers in the US will see you MUCH more quickly than one year (!!). Some place like Europe are not really single systems. They do work well though in a lot of ways. They will have statutory mandated and the private coverage. Even the mandated coverage will be delivered by 100-200 nonprofit funds. "Government has virtually no role in the direct delivery of health care." So these systems work by a) requiring that everyone be covered and b) staying out of the way of the actual service. Interestingly in germany patient representatives have no vote on the main body handling this (insurance companies and physicians do).

handoflixue 5y ago
I don't follow. "The minimum insurance that they get is inadequate to my needs" seems like a poor argument when the alternative is "absolutely nothing, which is inadequate for everyone". In the US, instead of wait times, we have people who just go without entirely. I know if I was unemployed, I'd much prefer an 18 week wait time to a "no". And for anyone privileged to be able to afford good insurance in the US, you can presumably pay for better private insurance/service in Europe, right?
- onphonenow 5y ago
  If you don't mind long waits, then a UK style system may be a good option for you. Places like Germany have taken a very different approach. Govt stays out of delivery of care entirely, but everyone has coverage basically (80% public/20% private maybe). Public care is pretty good with low waits. But govt not delivering it.
joshuamorton 5y ago
> NHS in the UK has 6M folks on waiting lists for things like cataract surgery, knee replacements etc. The wait time is in range of 18 weeks for many and for 300K+ > 52 weeks. The obvious question here (and I legitimately don't know the answer) is if there are a bunch of people who want knee surgery in the US but can't afford it, and so demand at the offered price is lower. Fewer people being able to afford a procedure would generally mean less demand and shorter wait times, but its not clear that that's a preferred outcome at a population level.

handoflixue 5y ago

I don't follow. "The minimum insurance that they get is inadequate to my needs" seems like a poor argument when the alternative is "absolutely nothing, which is inadequate for everyone". In the US, instead of wait times, we have people who just go without entirely. I know if I was unemployed, I'd much prefer an 18 week wait time to a "no". And for anyone privileged to be able to afford good insurance in the US, you can presumably pay for better private insurance/service in Europe, right?

onphonenow 5y ago
If you don't mind long waits, then a UK style system may be a good option for you. Places like Germany have taken a very different approach. Govt stays out of delivery of care entirely, but everyone has coverage basically (80% public/20% private maybe). Public care is pretty good with low waits. But govt not delivering it.

joshuamorton 5y ago

> NHS in the UK has 6M folks on waiting lists for things like cataract surgery, knee replacements etc. The wait time is in range of 18 weeks for many and for 300K+ > 52 weeks. The obvious question here (and I legitimately don't know the answer) is if there are a bunch of people who want knee surgery in the US but can't afford it, and so demand at the offered price is lower. Fewer people being able to afford a procedure would generally mean less demand and shorter wait times, but its not clear that that's a preferred outcome at a population level.