Why people are afraid of universal health care

[Jimmy Higgins]

Indeed, I always think of cancer and terribly diseases like a casino. Sure some people might contribute to it, but lots of people didn't. And it seems selfish to think that if you get lucky because your body can properly manage sugar levels, you shouldn't need to care about those that lost that raffle.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

My breast cancer screening journey

We deserve better

chanapdavis.substack.com

Short version:
Suspicious spot on her mammogram. Six months in and she's had an ultrasound but not yet a biopsy.

Your OP forgot to mention the disparity of breast cancer detections, successful treatments, and deaths between UHC nations and the United States.

I'm certain it was a silly oversight on your part and that you weren't actually trying to base your opinion on large scale medical outcomes between private and UHC funded Health Care systems simply on anecdotal evidence presented on a blog.

Also I'm sure many people in European countries etc, are totally afraid of their universal healthcare systems oh wait no don't think so.

 

[Henry-Finland]

gmbteach wrote:​

"My mum had a routine mammogram - bulk billed and so free - which found a spot….within three months it was biopsied, radiation seeded and removed and 6 weeks of radiation therapy completed. All covered by our UHC.

Australia doesn’t fuck around with shit like that.

Personally I had problems with my periods…when I got a dr to listen to me, I was ultrasounded, sent to a gyno and operated on within 2 weeks.

As I said Australia doesn’t fuck around with trivial nonsense like who’s going to pay….. they just get it done!

FFS, I had 3 knee surgeries in a private hospital with a private surgeon over a 5 month period…total co-pay (as you call it) was $250 excess on the hospital. Insurance paid around $18000 IIRC. And I only know that because they sent us a statement.

It’s reassuring knowing I can go to the dr, or ER, And get treatment and not worry about the cost.

So I pay an extra $1000 in taxes per year for this health care…. I don’t care…if it helps people stay well then what’s $1000 to me?"
---------------------------

I had my appendix removed in 2007.
Costs:
- Ambulance 9 € (125 km)
- Registration fee 20 €, surgery and two days in the hospital did not cost anything.
- Free taxi home (300 km)

As [B]gmbteach[/B] says: "...they just get it done!"
"...get treatment and not worry about the cost."
-----------------------------

I have also been present at three births, so I know how things are done. Giving birth in Finland doesn't cost anything. On the contrary, every child receives a maternity package:
- cloths for the baby
- bra pads and condoms for the parents.
See here - with pictures:

Maternity package

The maternity package contains baby clothes as well as care products and materials. It is updated yearly in response to feedback from clients.

www.kela.fi

As you understand, everything is paid by taxes. My taxes 1965 to 2014 altered between 20 - 35 %.
I think that in USA I would have paid X taxes + Y insurance = Not less than my taxes in Finland.

The good thing with this is, as everyone is insured through taxes:
- If you have many kids - you still pay and your taxes are smaller, depending on how many kids you have, but all the kids and both spouses are insured.
- If e.g. your mother in law get very sick, you do not have to worry about the costs. The only thing you have to do is to phone an ambulance.

My pension is quite small, so nowadays I pay 0% in taxes, but I have still all rights - "from cradle to grave".

 

[Henry-Finland]

My both knees were operated here in Bulgaria where I now live. I did not want to go to Finland, because I would have needed somewhere to live for those months I would have been in the queue. So, now I have American knees (NexGen - Complete Knee Solution by Zimmer Biomet, USA).

It was a privet hospital and it cost me all in all 4.000 €.

I wrote an article about this (also in English):
https://leshnikovo.weebly.com/sairaala---1073108610831085108010941072---hospital.html

If you need an operation: knees, hip or something like that - you can come here to Bulgaria. Just read the article and if it suits you, contact me. I will help and my help does not cost you anything (maybe the gasoline if we drive a lot).

 

[gmbteach]

Indeed, I always think of cancer and terribly diseases like a casino. Sure some people might contribute to it, but lots of people didn't. And it seems selfish to think that if you get lucky because your body can properly manage sugar levels, you shouldn't need to care about those that lost that raffle.

Mum is a diabetic….her test strips etc are all free. As are her hearing aides…. The only problem is getting her to the hospital..but there are solutions…community transport is cheap, and they can get taxi vouchers..usually I take them , but working full time prevents that.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Let me get the OP straight. There is an anecdotal horror story under private for-profit health insurance, so people are afraid of public universal non-profit health insurance?

I am sorry, but that does not make much sense to me. Would someone please provide a rational explanation?

It's because health insurance is just like food. If everyone is included then everyone is going to be eating caviar and lobster everyday and the system will risk going broke.

In other words, speaking as a proud conservative, when my druggie niece overdoses and runs up a $500K medical bill the "system" should pay for that because she's on welfare and unable to afford it, but it's not for everyone.

Understand now?

 

[barbos]

I've heard many similar stories. Canuckistanians go to US for doctor appointments because wait is too long.
I think health care is ripe for massive AI replacement of human doctors.
AI can go through symptoms and make a correct determination way more accurate than average doctor.

More Americans go to Mexico than Canadians come to the US.

Yes, americans go for cheaper price and canadians go for urgency.

So it's only rich Canadians doing it.

Yes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You think them basically playing Russian Roulette with her life is a reasonable approach??

You think it has anything at all to do with UHC??

Of course it does. We are seeing the fundamental failure of UHC: lowering standards instead of meeting them. So under capacity that there's a huge backlog on something that should be resolved quite promptly. You don't dick around when a cancer screening test comes back with an issue!

 

[bilby]

You think them basically playing Russian Roulette with her life is a reasonable approach??

You think it has anything at all to do with UHC??

Of course it does. We are seeing the fundamental failure of UHC: lowering standards instead of meeting them.

Ir maybe we are seeing one outlier that is only consisered typical by people who desperately want UHC to be a disaster in order to avoud having to review their prejudices against it.

When things go wrong in exactly similar ways in the US system, does that indicate that that system too is fundamentally a failure?

So under capacity that there's a huge backlog on something that should be resolved quite promptly.

One case is not a "huge backlog".

You don't dick around when a cancer screening test comes back with an issue!

No, and nor do any developed workd UHC systems, as a rule.

But all large systems make mistakes. The US system makes more - because there are multiple large bureaucracies, some private, some governmental, some a bit of both.

Dles this sound like not dicking around:

"Sorry, but your insurance doesn't cover this test at that hospital, so either you have to find $Thousands, and pay out of your own pocket, or you have to wait for the insurer to find a provider, then for the provider to have a free appointment slot, and then work out how to get to the approved provider who is not in a convenient part of town for you..."

Or is it somehow a mischaracterisation of your system? From what I have heard, many people in the US would love to even have an insurer to dick them around. "You can have the test, as soon as you can get the cash" sounds to me like the ultimate in dicking around, and like a death sentence for anyone with such awfully bad taste as to be poor.

 

[southernhybrid]

I've been on Medicare for 10 years, and have cared for people on Medicare for most of my 42 years as a professional nurse. I've never found that Medicare patients were treated any differently from patients who had private insurance. In fact, M'care recipients are often treated better, in my experience. I support M/care for all. If the younger folks were included, it would make care less expensive overall because most of the care we need is when we are older, statistically speaking of course.

When people have big copays, they often put off treatment. Even Advantage Plans have small copays, compared to some of the private insurance plans we had when younger. The biggest problem I have seen with Medicare is that people are often given aggressive end of life care or they demand aggressive end of life care. This is less of a problem compared to when I was younger and visited home health patients who were living with G-tubes and even respirators despite being almost in a vegetative state. Imo, aggressive end of life care is cruel, expensive and hospice would be a better option.

The problem in the US, is s that medical care if often all about profit and greed, so procedures and tests that aren't necessary are often ordered to make more money. Hopefully if we had government supported UHC, that would change over time. Doctors fuck up plenty of times, as they are only humans, but it rarely has a thing to do with which plan pays the bills. On the other hand, I have seen people without any insurance or money who were treated poorly. I saw it in home health. If a person had no way to pay, they were given about 2 visits. If a person had Medicare, they were sometimes over treated so the agency could make extra money or as one administrator put it, "we must maximize profit". That were her exact words when I was working in QA during the 90s. That's just my opinion as one who has worked as a health care professional and one who is a Medicare recipient.

Btw, I refuse a lot of things that I don't feel are necessary. I don't like to abuse the system. I support bodily autonomy and if I'm wrong for refusing something, that's on me.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You think them basically playing Russian Roulette with her life is a reasonable approach??

You think it has anything at all to do with UHC??

Of course it does. We are seeing the fundamental failure of UHC: lowering standards instead of meeting them.*

* claim unsubstantiated.

So under capacity that there's a huge backlog on something that should be resolved quite promptly. You don't dick around when a cancer screening test comes back with an issue!

And right now, you are hanging your coat on a blog article about one person. I'm pretty certain I could find at least one example of such shoddy treatment in America.

 

[ZiprHead]

You think them basically playing Russian Roulette with her life is a reasonable approach??

You think it has anything at all to do with UHC??

Of course it does. We are seeing the fundamental failure of UHC: lowering standards instead of meeting them. So under capacity that there's a huge backlog on something that should be resolved quite promptly. You don't dick around when a cancer screening test comes back with an issue!

We don't have UHC here and yet people here are denied by insurance companies needed testing all the time.

 

[Toni]

I can't even.

What has to be broken in a person's brain for them to think that one fairly trivial story of a short delay in getting a diagnostic procedure - something that also occasionally happens for fully insured patients in the US system - somehow outweighs all of the horrific consequences of the US system, and is therefore a reason to fear universal health care?

How long do uninsured women in the US have to wait for a biopsy? Is waiting their biggest problem? Do they even get a biopsy at all?

Is the whole business of being an uninsured patient in the US, who suspects she might have cancer, such a stress free stroll in the park that nobody would swap it for the hellish nightmare of the system in Canada (which is, of course, indistinguishable from the completely different UHC systems in other OECD nations - basically there are two healthcare regimes: The American Way and The Wrong Way).

FFS. I seriously can't even.

What is wrong with you?? Who would post this story with that as the headline, other than as a woefully bad attempt at satire?

And to then include this gem as an aside in the anecdote about how much better the US system is:

We were arguing with the insurance about it six months later

I have never argued with health insurance about anything, ever. No insurer has ever told me what treatment I can or can't have, or which hospitals or clinics I can or can't attend. If I need a diagnostic test, I get one. And am out of pocket no more than the cost of parking at the hospital (which is admittedly hair-raisingly expensive, but we are talking tens of dollars, not thousands).

Ok, but when one is told they need a biopsy—and they can have one in six months, they hear: we think you have cancer but we aren’t going to bother checking for a good six months.

Which actually is not a big problem with some cancers. But with others: that’s a death sentence, possibly after rounds of chemo and surgery, and all the health consequences for you, your family and friends, your career, your ability to work and pay your bills.

Women are scared of breast cancer. They are scared of dying of this disease. Likely they know someone who has the disease and someone who died too young from this disease. They are scared of the amputation which is much more likely if the breast cancer is a rapidly growing cancer. Which they cannot know without a biopsy. They are scared they might need to lose both breasts and maybe their ovaries, going into early menopause. They are afraid the man in their life or maybe the woman in their life will no longer find them attractive. They are afraid they won’t enjoy sex anymore . They are afraid they won’t be able to have a child or more children.

But sure: just sit with that fear while telling yourself you need to suck it up so that everyone else can get their fair turn.

Why does it have to be one or the other? A needle biopsy is quick. A properly funded facility can get you the results quite quickly. Quicker diagnosis leads to cheaper, more effective treatment and better outcomes fur the patient.

 

[Toni]

You think them basically playing Russian Roulette with her life is a reasonable approach??

You think it has anything at all to do with UHC??

Of course it does. We are seeing the fundamental failure of UHC: lowering standards instead of meeting them.*

* claim unsubstantiated.

So under capacity that there's a huge backlog on something that should be resolved quite promptly. You don't dick around when a cancer screening test comes back with an issue!

And right now, you are hanging your coat on a blog article about one person. I'm pretty certain I could find at least one example of such shoddy treatment in America.

Yeah, I can provide…

 

[Henry-Finland]

I can't even.

What has to be broken in a person's brain for them to think that one fairly trivial story of a short delay in getting a diagnostic procedure - something that also occasionally happens for fully insured patients in the US system - somehow outweighs all of the horrific consequences of the US system, and is therefore a reason to fear universal health care?

How long do uninsured women in the US have to wait for a biopsy? Is waiting their biggest problem? Do they even get a biopsy at all?

Is the whole business of being an uninsured patient in the US, who suspects she might have cancer, such a stress free stroll in the park that nobody would swap it for the hellish nightmare of the system in Canada (which is, of course, indistinguishable from the completely different UHC systems in other OECD nations - basically there are two healthcare regimes: The American Way and The Wrong Way).

FFS. I seriously can't even.

What is wrong with you?? Who would post this story with that as the headline, other than as a woefully bad attempt at satire?

And to then include this gem as an aside in the anecdote about how much better the US system is:

We were arguing with the insurance about it six months later

I have never argued with health insurance about anything, ever. No insurer has ever told me what treatment I can or can't have, or which hospitals or clinics I can or can't attend. If I need a diagnostic test, I get one. And am out of pocket no more than the cost of parking at the hospital (which is admittedly hair-raisingly expensive, but we are talking tens of dollars, not thousands).

Ok, but when one is told they need a biopsy—and they can have one in six months, they hear: we think you have cancer but we aren’t going to bother checking for a good six months.

Which actually is not a big problem with some cancers. But with others: that’s a death sentence, possibly after rounds of chemo and surgery, and all the health consequences for you, your family and friends, your career, your ability to work and pay your bills.

Women are scared of breast cancer. They are scared of dying of this disease. Likely they know someone who has the disease and someone who died too young from this disease. They are scared of the amputation which is much more likely if the breast cancer is a rapidly growing cancer. Which they cannot know without a biopsy. They are scared they might need to lose both breasts and maybe their ovaries, going into early menopause. They are afraid the man in their life or maybe the woman in their life will no longer find them attractive. They are afraid they won’t enjoy sex anymore . They are afraid they won’t be able to have a child or more children.

But sure: just sit with that fear while telling yourself you need to suck it up so that everyone else can get their fair turn.

Why does it have to be one or the other? A needle biopsy is quick. A properly funded facility can get you the results quite quickly. Quicker diagnosis leads to cheaper, more effective treatment and better outcomes fur the patient.

When a man grows older, then the tits are not necessary. But to find a likewise thinking soul - that is a problem.
Tits are for men that want back to mama.

 

[laughing dog]

You think them basically playing Russian Roulette with her life is a reasonable approach??

You think it has anything at all to do with UHC??

Of course it does. We are seeing the fundamental failure of UHC: lowering standards instead of meeting them. So under capacity that there's a huge backlog on something that should be resolved quite promptly. You don't dick around when a cancer screening test comes back with an issue!

You have yet to make the connection between the OP's article and your beliefs.

 

[Toni]

I can't even.

What has to be broken in a person's brain for them to think that one fairly trivial story of a short delay in getting a diagnostic procedure - something that also occasionally happens for fully insured patients in the US system - somehow outweighs all of the horrific consequences of the US system, and is therefore a reason to fear universal health care?

How long do uninsured women in the US have to wait for a biopsy? Is waiting their biggest problem? Do they even get a biopsy at all?

Is the whole business of being an uninsured patient in the US, who suspects she might have cancer, such a stress free stroll in the park that nobody would swap it for the hellish nightmare of the system in Canada (which is, of course, indistinguishable from the completely different UHC systems in other OECD nations - basically there are two healthcare regimes: The American Way and The Wrong Way).

FFS. I seriously can't even.

What is wrong with you?? Who would post this story with that as the headline, other than as a woefully bad attempt at satire?

And to then include this gem as an aside in the anecdote about how much better the US system is:

We were arguing with the insurance about it six months later

I have never argued with health insurance about anything, ever. No insurer has ever told me what treatment I can or can't have, or which hospitals or clinics I can or can't attend. If I need a diagnostic test, I get one. And am out of pocket no more than the cost of parking at the hospital (which is admittedly hair-raisingly expensive, but we are talking tens of dollars, not thousands).

Ok, but when one is told they need a biopsy—and they can have one in six months, they hear: we think you have cancer but we aren’t going to bother checking for a good six months.

Which actually is not a big problem with some cancers. But with others: that’s a death sentence, possibly after rounds of chemo and surgery, and all the health consequences for you, your family and friends, your career, your ability to work and pay your bills.

Women are scared of breast cancer. They are scared of dying of this disease. Likely they know someone who has the disease and someone who died too young from this disease. They are scared of the amputation which is much more likely if the breast cancer is a rapidly growing cancer. Which they cannot know without a biopsy. They are scared they might need to lose both breasts and maybe their ovaries, going into early menopause. They are afraid the man in their life or maybe the woman in their life will no longer find them attractive. They are afraid they won’t enjoy sex anymore . They are afraid they won’t be able to have a child or more children.

But sure: just sit with that fear while telling yourself you need to suck it up so that everyone else can get their fair turn.

Why does it have to be one or the other? A needle biopsy is quick. A properly funded facility can get you the results quite quickly. Quicker diagnosis leads to cheaper, more effective treatment and better outcomes fur the patient.

When a man grows older, then the tits are not necessary. But to find a likewise thinking soul - that is a problem.
Tits are for men that want back to mama.

I’m an old woman and I still enjoy mine. And so does my husband. Neither of us want to go back to our mothers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You think them basically playing Russian Roulette with her life is a reasonable approach??

You think it has anything at all to do with UHC??

Of course it does. We are seeing the fundamental failure of UHC: lowering standards instead of meeting them.

Ir maybe we are seeing one outlier that is only consisered typical by people who desperately want UHC to be a disaster in order to avoud having to review their prejudices against it.

When things go wrong in exactly similar ways in the US system, does that indicate that that system too is fundamentally a failure?

The two systems have different types of failure. It's not a case of one being categorically better.

So under capacity that there's a huge backlog on something that should be resolved quite promptly.

One case is not a "huge backlog".

But why should we think she is an outlier? Look around at her blog--she isn't doing it to present tales of woe. And she doesn't see herself as an outlier.

You don't dick around when a cancer screening test comes back with an issue!

No, and nor do any developed workd UHC systems, as a rule.

Obviously false, as Canada certainly is dicking around. I've heard similar things out of England.

But all large systems make mistakes. The US system makes more - because there are multiple large bureaucracies, some private, some governmental, some a bit of both.

I don't think this is simply making a mistake.

Or is it somehow a mischaracterisation of your system? From what I have heard, many people in the US would love to even have an insurer to dick them around. "You can have the test, as soon as you can get the cash" sounds to me like the ultimate in dicking around, and like a death sentence for anyone with such awfully bad taste as to be poor.

Our system is not good at handling the people just above the point of needing government assistance. And, since it isn't mandated there are those who choose not to spend the money on insurance and then find out the hard way why that's a bad idea. Since the ACA was introduced nobody can be denied insurance, it's only a matter of money.

 

[Henry-Finland]

I can't even.

What has to be broken in a person's brain for them to think that one fairly trivial story of a short delay in getting a diagnostic procedure - something that also occasionally happens for fully insured patients in the US system - somehow outweighs all of the horrific consequences of the US system, and is therefore a reason to fear universal health care?

How long do uninsured women in the US have to wait for a biopsy? Is waiting their biggest problem? Do they even get a biopsy at all?

Is the whole business of being an uninsured patient in the US, who suspects she might have cancer, such a stress free stroll in the park that nobody would swap it for the hellish nightmare of the system in Canada (which is, of course, indistinguishable from the completely different UHC systems in other OECD nations - basically there are two healthcare regimes: The American Way and The Wrong Way).

FFS. I seriously can't even.

What is wrong with you?? Who would post this story with that as the headline, other than as a woefully bad attempt at satire?

And to then include this gem as an aside in the anecdote about how much better the US system is:

We were arguing with the insurance about it six months later

I have never argued with health insurance about anything, ever. No insurer has ever told me what treatment I can or can't have, or which hospitals or clinics I can or can't attend. If I need a diagnostic test, I get one. And am out of pocket no more than the cost of parking at the hospital (which is admittedly hair-raisingly expensive, but we are talking tens of dollars, not thousands).

Ok, but when one is told they need a biopsy—and they can have one in six months, they hear: we think you have cancer but we aren’t going to bother checking for a good six months.

Which actually is not a big problem with some cancers. But with others: that’s a death sentence, possibly after rounds of chemo and surgery, and all the health consequences for you, your family and friends, your career, your ability to work and pay your bills.

Women are scared of breast cancer. They are scared of dying of this disease. Likely they know someone who has the disease and someone who died too young from this disease. They are scared of the amputation which is much more likely if the breast cancer is a rapidly growing cancer. Which they cannot know without a biopsy. They are scared they might need to lose both breasts and maybe their ovaries, going into early menopause. They are afraid the man in their life or maybe the woman in their life will no longer find them attractive. They are afraid they won’t enjoy sex anymore . They are afraid they won’t be able to have a child or more children.

But sure: just sit with that fear while telling yourself you need to suck it up so that everyone else can get their fair turn.

Why does it have to be one or the other? A needle biopsy is quick. A properly funded facility can get you the results quite quickly. Quicker diagnosis leads to cheaper, more effective treatment and better outcomes fur the patient.

When a man grows older, then the tits are not necessary. But to find a likewise thinking soul - that is a problem.
Tits are for men that want back to mama.

I’m an old woman and I still enjoy mine. And so does my husband. Neither of us want to go back to our mothers.

Yes, but if you get cancer - I do not think that they are necessary or that your husband will move out because of an operation. I think that two souls that are together and enjoying that, is the most important thing.

 

[Toni]

I can't even.

What has to be broken in a person's brain for them to think that one fairly trivial story of a short delay in getting a diagnostic procedure - something that also occasionally happens for fully insured patients in the US system - somehow outweighs all of the horrific consequences of the US system, and is therefore a reason to fear universal health care?

How long do uninsured women in the US have to wait for a biopsy? Is waiting their biggest problem? Do they even get a biopsy at all?

Is the whole business of being an uninsured patient in the US, who suspects she might have cancer, such a stress free stroll in the park that nobody would swap it for the hellish nightmare of the system in Canada (which is, of course, indistinguishable from the completely different UHC systems in other OECD nations - basically there are two healthcare regimes: The American Way and The Wrong Way).

FFS. I seriously can't even.

What is wrong with you?? Who would post this story with that as the headline, other than as a woefully bad attempt at satire?

And to then include this gem as an aside in the anecdote about how much better the US system is:

We were arguing with the insurance about it six months later

I have never argued with health insurance about anything, ever. No insurer has ever told me what treatment I can or can't have, or which hospitals or clinics I can or can't attend. If I need a diagnostic test, I get one. And am out of pocket no more than the cost of parking at the hospital (which is admittedly hair-raisingly expensive, but we are talking tens of dollars, not thousands).

Ok, but when one is told they need a biopsy—and they can have one in six months, they hear: we think you have cancer but we aren’t going to bother checking for a good six months.

Which actually is not a big problem with some cancers. But with others: that’s a death sentence, possibly after rounds of chemo and surgery, and all the health consequences for you, your family and friends, your career, your ability to work and pay your bills.

Women are scared of breast cancer. They are scared of dying of this disease. Likely they know someone who has the disease and someone who died too young from this disease. They are scared of the amputation which is much more likely if the breast cancer is a rapidly growing cancer. Which they cannot know without a biopsy. They are scared they might need to lose both breasts and maybe their ovaries, going into early menopause. They are afraid the man in their life or maybe the woman in their life will no longer find them attractive. They are afraid they won’t enjoy sex anymore . They are afraid they won’t be able to have a child or more children.

But sure: just sit with that fear while telling yourself you need to suck it up so that everyone else can get their fair turn.

Why does it have to be one or the other? A needle biopsy is quick. A properly funded facility can get you the results quite quickly. Quicker diagnosis leads to cheaper, more effective treatment and better outcomes fur the patient.

When a man grows older, then the tits are not necessary. But to find a likewise thinking soul - that is a problem.
Tits are for men that want back to mama.

I’m an old woman and I still enjoy mine. And so does my husband. Neither of us want to go back to our mothers.

Yes, but if you get cancer - I do not think that they are necessary or that your husband will move out because of an operation. I think that two souls that are together and enjoying that, is the most important thing.

I agree. But there is an emotional component that can be very hard for women.