An illustration of the problem with UHC

[Bronzeage]

Is there any potential problem with universal healthcare which does not currently exist in policies sold by corporate health insurance companies?

The problem is one of accountability.

Are insurance companies somehow more accountable than a government agency? A government agencies regulations are approved by the citizens representatives. Who approves a private companies policies? Why would policies created for the purposes of making profits off of medical needs be better or more accountable?

 

[Toni]

The problem is one of accountability.

Are insurance companies somehow more accountable than a government agency? A government agencies regulations are approved by the citizens representatives. Who approves a private companies policies? Why would policies created for the purposes of making profits off of medical needs be better or more accountable?

I'm very much for universal health care coverage.

I'm very luke warm--at the very best--to monopolies in health care. We're not being honest with ourselves if we refuse to accept that the type of health care coverage we have dictates, in large part, the type and quality of care we receive.

Given a choice, would you like to be on Medicaid? Medicare? I'm very grateful that my coverage and access greatly surpasses that of Medicaid patients. And yes, grateful I am not yet a medicare patient. The biggest reason that frankly health care providers limit the number of medicaid patients they serve is because reimbursements are so low that they lose money on every medicaid patient. Medicare patients are nearly at the same point. This does not bode well for any of us, even if we are in our 30's (because 20's likely have poor insurance or are on their parents' plans still).

I'd be for much better funding but I don't believe we will ever get it. Perhaps if every government official and every CEO had the same coverage as the poorest and the oldest of us, but that's not going to happen. Even if we have government mandated government sponsored health care. Canada and Europe are not that far away if you are rich enough.

Universal government sponsored health care will be even more subject to the whims and vagaries of budgets and political factions than it is now. Conservative politicians are happy to limit access to abortions and birth control for anyone who is dependent upon govt. sponsored insurance. We do not need to spread that joy around.

I'm grateful that I have very good insurance and in fact, I am double covered through my husband's employer as well. It may seem like an excessive expense but when my husband unexpectedly was diagnosed with cancer, believe me: I have been very grateful for every single dime of coverage we had. I believe that EVERYBODY should have at least that level of health care coverage. I'm even more grateful for access we have had to what is arguably some of the best health care in the US and in the world--thanks to our insurance and our geography. I've watched more than one friend die because they didn't have the 'right' insurance and were sent to other very good institutions with less stellar resources.

I don't believe that govt. paid universal health care will work in the US the way it works in Europe. Those of us with power/money (i.e. good health insurance and a modicum of education) expect excellent treatment on demand. I am pretty sure that Americans--middle class (shrinking though it is) and up are not willing to give up that access and most of us believe that we would be giving up some access.

 

[Togo]

I don't believe that govt. paid universal health care will work in the US the way it works in Europe. Those of us with power/money (i.e. good health insurance and a modicum of education) expect excellent treatment on demand. I am pretty sure that Americans--middle class (shrinking though it is) and up are not willing to give up that access and most of us believe that we would be giving up some access.

Having been treat both in a country with UHC, and a country without....

In the US I was called sir, the waiting room was extremely pleasant, I was treated almost immediately after they'd checked my insurance details,, and the customer care was excellent. The latest drugs were available and were prescribed in large quantities. They had some concerns, and I was offered a consultation (i.e. with a specialist for my condition) for three weeks time. That wasn't soon enough to actually do anything about my condition (blood poisoning), but that was the best my insurance could manage.

In the UK I was in a drab waiting room, just an alcove off the main corridor. There was no TV, no refreshments, and the person keeping track of us was also tracking the doctors and nurses, which unashamedly took priority over us. There wasn't really any 'customer care' as such. She was treated after a wait of just over an hour, and was referred to a specialist the same day. This required yet more waiting (3 more hours, since they weren't on site until the afternoon), and then she was seen, diagnosed, and given an appointment for the following day.

So the US wins out on drug availability, customer care, speed, and general quality of experience. But in the UK I got the medical treatment I needed, at the time I needed it. My wife benefited from the speedy treatment by a specialist, whereas the prognosis would have been much worse if she's had to wait on specialist diagnosis. If I had been in the US, she would have needed surgery. In the US and without insurance, she would almost certainly have died.

My impression is that access to care, particularly for dangerous and life-threatening conditions, is far better in the UK, even for those with a fair amount of insurance. Certainly the treatment of obscure and difficult conditions is better. But you won't get a TV, you won't get much customer service, you'll have to wait a number of hours before and during treatment, and during that time no one will try and sell you anything.

I know which I'd rather have.