Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AlexB
Not the case here FYI
|
Thank you for this correction. People with personal experience in the Canadian system have said it is the case there and I thought the UK system was the same; I've been told it's considered an essential cost-control measure due to the value of preventative care.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IJ Reilly
Now we have gone full circle, this is what I was trying to say in my first post. All of the liberty infringements you name in the Canada/UK model exist in our current system, it’s just that a private insurance company is making the decisions instead of a government agency.
|
There is a huge, fundamental difference when a government agency does it though. If you don't like what a business does, you stop being a customer of theirs. You can't 'opt out' when something is the law of the land. In one case the government tells you how to live your life, and requires you to pay into the system whether or not you use it. In the other, you are able to make a decision as a consumer.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Swaggs
Sincere question: have you attempted to purchase insurance or get a healthcare appointment with a specialist for yourself, child, or parent lately and what has that experience been like?
Where I live (high SES town of under 100,000 with two healthcare systems and a lot of private practices), there is a 3-12 month wait to get in to see most specialists, and those are often mid-level providers like nurse practitioners or physician assistants.
The choices for insurance are two state approved carriers that have a handful of coverage packages, the insurance provider your company contracts with and the handful of coverage packages they offer, or state provided Medicare or Medicaid with their standard coverages (if you make below a certain household income, are disabled, or 65 or over).
|
This is an excellent post, I apologize for taking so long to get back to it. I guess it depends on what you mean by lately. I had oral surgery a couple of years ago, and about 6-8 years ago I had an operation on my right foot to remove bone and reattach a tendon. The latter was more of the specialist variety, as the doctor who did the operation was, from what I'm told, the top foot-and-ankle guy in this part of the state. The wait was actually less for him, a couple weeks, while it was close to two months for the oral surgeon.
To get into the rest of your point, I think there is a clear and basic distinction between military, law enforcement, transportation, etc. and something like health care. But to repeat what I've said previously in the thread,
I am in favor of universal health care. I think it's worth the price in liberty that is paid. This all came up because tarcone was asking what is wrong with it, I gave two examples of opposition POV, and then this discussion eventuated.
A personal example. In the case of the foot surgery I mentioned, I was uninsured due to all alternatives including ACA being prohibitively expensive. I burned through my savings getting XRays, bone scan, MRI, etc. to nail down the problem. I should have been able to have Medicaid cover the cost of the surgery, but I was unable to bludgeon my way through the beauracracy with repeated attempts including writing a letter at one point to do so, so I was in debt for years including getting sued by the surgery center before eventually paying off the amount in full, . Many people have suffered worse of course, but the point is that this is the kind of issue that those who oppose a government-based solution are concerned about. Beauracracy doesn't have to concern itself with satisfying customers. It's in their interest not to in fact, because that creates demand for a larger budget. Meanwhile, what you described as inadequate choice in the private system still affords them the opportunity to simply not participate in it.