5 ms·

I live in a country with universal health care (Romania). Being forced to pay insurance is annoying, in theory. What happens in practice is if you don't pay it

I live in a country with universal health care (Romania). Being forced to pay insurance is annoying, in theory. What happens in practice is if you don't pay it and need insured medical care you have to pay for the last 6 years, with penalty (about double, in the worst case). That would be the "fine". Not being employed I was able to delay paying for about a year, without penalty and being insured in the meantime. What you get for it is the knowledge that you'll never have to budget for medical expenses. I did have to pay occasionally, like when I wanted a better yearly checkup, but it's never been an amount I couldn't just take out of my pocket. Anyways, I always felt that if there's something worth paying for it's a healthy society. At least as much as all the other givens: police, military or emergency services.

jlees 17y ago
There's also the option of the way the UK does it. You pay insurance. It's even called that - National Insurance. There is no alternative. Not having a National Insurance number is like not having a SSN. If you are in specific situations (student, low income, self-employed below a certain threshold etc) you become exempt from stamp, but it's still insurance. It's so well-entrenched and forgettable (comes out along with tax and student loan repayments - but I shouldn't stir that hornets' nest!) that hardly anyone realises what it is, or its origins as, quite descriptively, a nationalised form of healthcare and unemployment insurance.
- radu_floricica 17y ago
  It's the same thing here. I was describing this from a freelancer's point of view, who has to actually take out the money, but if you're in the system in any way (employed, unemployed, student) you don't even know you pay it.
ckinnan 17y ago
Romania's society isn't especially healthy (life expectancy is lower than the U.S.). Neither is its economy, with a per capita GDP of less than $12,000 a year. Don't buy the myths of government-run health care. It increases corruption and political control of our lives, the new taxes hurt entrepreneurs, and it will reduce overall health care innovation. The US system needs reform but the bill passed last night does nothing to address the drivers of higher costs. Instead it forces more people and resources into the current system.
- gloob 17y ago
  Romania's society isn't especially healthy (life expectancy is lower than the U.S.). Neither is its economy, with a per capita GDP of less than $12,000 a year. Two possible reasons spring to mind: 1) this is the fault of public healthcare 2) this is because Romania was basically a Soviet principality for fifty years Perhaps you should try looking at, say, Canada if you don't want an comparison that was rigged from the beginning.
- radu_floricica 17y ago
  Like gloob said below, a lot of Romania's population is old, poor and lives in rural areas. This particular segment probably drags down the average a hefty amount. I do agree with the corruption being rampant, though. But I'd blame this on particulars of the Romanian society - there's hardly any aspect of it that's not touched by corruption. Strange enough the system encouraged a lot of private medical practice which is both good and corruption free. Their income is both public insurance and direct pay.

jlees 17y ago

There's also the option of the way the UK does it. You pay insurance. It's even called that - National Insurance. There is no alternative. Not having a National Insurance number is like not having a SSN. If you are in specific situations (student, low income, self-employed below a certain threshold etc) you become exempt from stamp, but it's still insurance. It's so well-entrenched and forgettable (comes out along with tax and student loan repayments - but I shouldn't stir that hornets' nest!) that hardly anyone realises what it is, or its origins as, quite descriptively, a nationalised form of healthcare and unemployment insurance.

radu_floricica 17y ago
It's the same thing here. I was describing this from a freelancer's point of view, who has to actually take out the money, but if you're in the system in any way (employed, unemployed, student) you don't even know you pay it.

ckinnan 17y ago

Romania's society isn't especially healthy (life expectancy is lower than the U.S.). Neither is its economy, with a per capita GDP of less than $12,000 a year. Don't buy the myths of government-run health care. It increases corruption and political control of our lives, the new taxes hurt entrepreneurs, and it will reduce overall health care innovation. The US system needs reform but the bill passed last night does nothing to address the drivers of higher costs. Instead it forces more people and resources into the current system.

gloob 17y ago
Romania's society isn't especially healthy (life expectancy is lower than the U.S.). Neither is its economy, with a per capita GDP of less than $12,000 a year. Two possible reasons spring to mind: 1) this is the fault of public healthcare 2) this is because Romania was basically a Soviet principality for fifty years Perhaps you should try looking at, say, Canada if you don't want an comparison that was rigged from the beginning.
radu_floricica 17y ago
Like gloob said below, a lot of Romania's population is old, poor and lives in rural areas. This particular segment probably drags down the average a hefty amount. I do agree with the corruption being rampant, though. But I'd blame this on particulars of the Romanian society - there's hardly any aspect of it that's not touched by corruption. Strange enough the system encouraged a lot of private medical practice which is both good and corruption free. Their income is both public insurance and direct pay.