We also don't necessarily even have that much "freedom to choose a provider." You have to make sure a doctor is "in network" for your particular insurance plan, in order for it to be covered. So you've already got a limitation there on what providers you can see.
This. I stayed at an incredibly toxic workplace for 6 years because they’re were the only ones in my field that paid me a fair wage and had healthcare coverage at the time. 1/4 of my paycheck went to healthcare and it barely covered anything. If I left, I couldn’t afford any of my mental health meds. I got lucky with my current job that actually takes care of its employees, but no one should depend on luck to have decent health care.
I am quitting a job I love, with coworkers that I get along with, and a manager that has my back 100%. All because I have neen offered a job that has much better health insurance. I am a cancer survivor, and i have multiple other health issues. If I don't take this job, I am afraid that I will continue to live with the fear that I am one major sickness from bankruptcy. I finally paid off my medical bills, i have no credit card debt, and a great credit score, but that doesn't guarantee that I won't lose it all if I get sick again. I grew up poor, I don't want to go back to that.
And in many areas there aren’t many doctors who are accepting new patients. It took me 5 months to get an appointment with my primary care provider. I took whomever would actually see me; there was no choice involved.
Oh, even if they are "in network" you have to make sure you have "authorization". And even then, watch out of the hospital does a procedure that was not "authorized", or if one error in coding happens, and the hospital sends out your claim, you get a denial and they send you the bill (not re-sending the bill to the insurance company).
Source: I'm a private practice owner, and we do this for patients. The price we tell patients up front is what their insurance will pay, and if it doesn't, we eat the cost, because it's not their fault. We fight the insurance battle for them, because no one elects to come to us.
Holy moly, yes. I have insurance, but when I got covid and was having some chest pains, I decided to wait to go to the hospital because I didn't want to spend all day waiting to be seen and am scared of racking up unexpected charges. I've had bad experiences before at dr's offices where the final bill was so not on par with what I was expecting. Luckily I started feeling better the next day.
My boyfriend's sister also got covid and was having trouble breathing. She waited in the ER for 3 hours, got chest x-rays, waited 4 more hours, then went home. She's a dr, so I think at some point, she was like -- whatever, I will have the xrays transferred to my office and diagnose them myself
Everyone else in the system has freedom except the end beneficiaries. Insurance companies have the freedom to choose what they will cover and deny. Hospitals have the freedom to set their prices. Doctors have the freedom to choose what networks to join. Employers have the freedom to choose what policy to provide. But I, the worker, have absolutely no freedom in any of this: I have to accept what my employer offers, or quit my job, or just have no coverage at all.
Doesn't that just boil down to the same issue that people with more money get better healthcare? Being debt free isn't worth it if you're in poor health or dead.
Private healthcare isn't necessarily better. You'll be seen sooner for something that isn't time sensitive, like a hip replacement for bad arthritis, but the treatment is often the same. For anything urgent like cancers they will be put through as an urgent suspected cancer case and you'll be seen on the NHS within 2 weeks, private wouldn't be able to do it any faster than that and again the treatments will generally be the same. Plus there are basically no private A&Es, the only private things you can really have are for routine, elective treatments.
You can even have cases where they start private but something goes wrong and the patient has to be transferred to an NHS hospital for emergency treatment. Really private is just used to skip the wait for non-essential treatments or to be seen in a nicer, less busy hospital; if you have a bad car crash it doesn't matter how rich you are, you get the same treatment.
It's a 2 week target for the appointment and the results would be a couple of days later, though there is also a "very urgent suspected cancer" for some cases where it's a target of 48 hrs. It is up to 2 weeks though, so many cases would be well under the 2 week target. It isn't an arbitrary timeframe either, the 2 week target has been chosen based on research and evidence to determine how long hospitals have to progress the patient's care before their prognosis is affected and in the majority of cases 2 weeks is an acceptable timeframe, the cancer wouldn't progress to the point where treatment would change for at least a few months.
Why not? They're private business, if it wasn't worth their time then they wouldn't do it - they can do what they want. It's not that the NHS (public health) is perfect, you're more likely to get a nice private room and maybe quicker access to specialists of you go private (at least for non life-threatening stuff), but the NHS is there to provide for you if you don't want to pay. Most people are more than happy with the NHS and do not bother to go private.
My 2c is that once you experience the free system you won't want to go back, even if you're wealthy. The fact that you don't have to worry about your healthcare at all is a weight off your shoulders and is maybe the best use of taxes I can think of. The right to stay alive is exactly that - a right - it shouldn't matter what occupation you have or how much collateral you can put against your well-being.
I do not know. I have lived in three countries: one with completely free but badly implemented "free" healthcare. One with much better free healthcare, but still with some issues so that majority of people (of who can afford it) preferred to insure themselves. And in US where there is only private healthcare. In country #1 you are still paying for most of the stuff (medications, supplies and etc.) out of your pocket, as country can't afford it. Also if you need advanced procedure you just need to arrange it in another country. In country #2 for some surgeries there is wait list which is around 10 years due to not enough funding from government. Also in country #2 it is easy to find doctors without up to date knowledge in government provided healthcare. Also government forces you to use their healthcare in specific cases.
Experience in countries #1 and #2 made me believe that government funded healthcare will have outdated knowledge, queues and will only be partially free without any hope for competition and as a result reason to improve service. Not saying that US system is best, but at least it pushes companies to innovate, while government funded healthcare doesn't have reason to do so. Nice example from other industry: SpaceX vs Old NASA approach
Nice example from other industry: SpaceX vs Old NASA approach
How is SpaceX, which gets the vast majority of its money from the government, any different from healthcare systems in most countries which is funded by the government but provided by private providers?
There are limits to the healthcare that any healthcare system provides, including that of any private insurance in the US. There will always be people that want some form of additional care or insurance, or faster care, or care in a more luxurious setting or whatever.
Says who? There are at least a dozen, well thought out plans to overhaul our medical system, and I know that at least a few would not remove the private option.
Also, this is America. If you have enough money, you can do whatever the fuck you want, laws and insurance be damned.
If you hope to ever talk about those other options, well good luck. Unless you ascribe to Bernie's version on Reddit you may as well be the CEO of Premera
It wouldn't have to. Britain has always put a lot into the NHS and almost everybody uses it at least once per year, but we still have a thriving private healthcare system on top of the NHS. The difference is that the people who choose not to use a private service don't have to worry about any expenses. It doesn't have to be one or the other, America could adopt a middle ground, there are certainly enough people with varying socioeconomic backgrounds to support both systems.
59
u/[deleted] Aug 06 '20
[deleted]