Health Care Outside the US?

Hello to all... I was curious to all my non-American friends here how the health care system is in your country.

Can you see a doctor immediately when you need to or do you wait weeks or months? Is it cheap or very expensive? Is the quality of care excellent?

Here in the US it has been a big debate by many so I was hoping you may be able to enlighten me on this matter. Thank you.

 

@Jomo

I live in the UK and our health care is provided by the NHS. I personally feel it is a very good service and at times excellent. It is funded through our taxes. It is totally free at point of delivery for everyone. Like any large organisation it has its problems and at times some people will feel they have been let down by it.

The newspapers, Internet and news networks, are quick to report when there are failings within the NHS but seldom report the many thousands of successful operations that are carried out each year, or the thousands of successful procedures that are carried out at out-patient clinics week in and week out throughout the UK. I am still an out-patient after after 21 years with tinnitus and was recently fitted with two new digital white noise generators that were given free.

Seeing a GP is free and I seldom have a problem getting an appointment. There are some people that do though. The quality of service can vary throughout the country but I believe if most people are honest the majority of the time it is good. Many years ago when I first got tinnitus and wanted to go private my doctor advised me that I would get the best help and long term aftercare for my tinnitus under the NHS. After 21 years I have found his advice to be true. Conditions like tinnitus, which can be chronic most private healthcare companies in this country, are not into the long haul. They are okay for a quick fix but long-term illnesses and treatments they don’t want to know.

I have only given a brief summery of our Healthcare system, there is a whole lot more that it has to offer and I am immensely thankful that it has always been there for me and hope this continues.

Michael

 

In my opinion the NHS are good if you have something immediately obvious wrong with you. A few years ago I was being fobbed off by my GP for another condition so I went private and got a diagnosis. I felt smug because the private GP I saw wrote to my NHS GP with his findings and subsequent advice in dealing with said condition.

 

I have had great health care on the NHS over the years.
Operations on both knees,knee injections,gallbladder out,ENT and Audiology treatment and mega amount of scans MRI ,CT scans etc,asthma treatment and hospital stays.
My only problem is trying get seen by our new doctor he's booked up for two weeks and nightmare getting in to see him....
Love glynis

 

Here in The Netherlands we have the `GP as gatekeeper' system. An appointment with a GP can be made in about a week and is completely covered by insurance. If necessary, the GP will refer you a specialist and only a GP can do this. If the first specialist couldn't help you or if it was unsatisfactory for some reasons, you can go back to your GP and ask for a referral to another specialist.

Overall, coverage by insurance is very good and the costs relatively low. I've had some bad experiences, but in general the quality has been excellent. My jaw-surgery went excellently, back and posture related issues were resolved and my tinnitus was properly looked at (physical causes ruled out, determined which frequencies/loudness, good advice, was given an update on the latest science). Staff are generally friendly, personal and professional.
The one exception seems to be mental health. I've heard a lot of complaints, such as long waiting lists, rubbish therapy sessions, using interns instead of graduated psychologists, misdiagnoses and holding on to clients only squeeze the most money out of the insurance companies.


Looking at how the health care compares world-wide, it's among the best and on a similar level as the Scandinavian countries.
However, it's on its way down. We've had "right wing" or "liberal" governments for some years now. These parties essentially represent business interests and have a PR-machine to get votes. The results have been increased privatizations and the expected increase in cost, increase in private gain and decrease in quality.
Another factor is the large number of baby boomers who are now reaching retirement age and increase the demand in health care. This increase was foreseen, but no money was set aside for this in previous years. Different political parties have different solutions, but most see cuts as unavoidable.

The US is an outlier when it comes to health care for such a wealthy nation, with its high costs and low outcomes. The Affordable Care Act was a (small) step in the right direction, but it's constantly under fire from the current government. (News just came in that there was no majority to repeal and replace it completely, so not all hope is lost.) Noam Chomsky has spoken about US health care in a number of interviews and Michael Moore has a documentary comparing US to non-US health care, so you might want to look into those for more information.

Personally, I prefer the Dutch system over the US one, regardless whether I'm in good or bad health. Of course, that's easy to say for anyone with a chronic condition, but I still think the higher taxes are worth it. Whoever falls ill is largely random, and the (financial) burden should thus be shared equally.

 

Sounds pretty much like the thing we got going on here too, only without the insurance. Or I guess we're insured, just by the government.

 

In Canada, at least Ontario for me:

We get free emergency care, meaning break your arm, need a cast, fluids taken in, medications administered in the ER, x rays, pharmacy, doctor diagnosis, stitches, giving birth, etc all covered. Wait times are abysmal and brutally long. Doctors not very thorough, not just ENTs. All of my, and friends family and acquaintances, experience with our healthcare system is extremely negative.

Dental, vision, prescription medications are not covered unless you are provided additional coverage through a private health care provider like Blue Cross or Sun Life or similar or workplace benefits.

I was vacationing in Thailand and had a boating accident. Sent to a local hospital. Though it is a private practice, and paid out of pocket, I couldn't believe how efficient and caring the doctor and nurses were. I had check up, x-ray, surgery, prescription filled... I was in and out of there in an hour and yet never felt rushed. Real pros and made me ashamed of our own hospitals.

Canada is world renowned for its health care system but to me its overburned and awful. Obviously not paying for certain things is great but anything less than a gunshot wound or a broken limb... expect to be put through the ringer.

 

Yeah, thanks for the incomplete quote. You cut off the Chomsky part.

Sure, Moore is not someone you'd want to cite in an academic paper and it's more entertainment than information, but he still has a point... It's not too bad if you're just starting to look into this. If you have other suggestions, let me know

 

I've quickly looked it up. In Norway there is a consultation cost for each GP visit, in The Netherlands this is covered by insurance. Norway has government organized health insurance. The Netherlands did too, until it was privatized in 2006.

 

Move to North Korea or Cuba. They are serious about protecting their citizens from the "business interests", and no greedy people are exploiting their healthcare system.

Are you saying Chomsky is unbiased?

 

There is nothing inherently wrong with business interests or for-profit institutions, but these need to be regulated. If the only concern is making a profit, then this will come at the expense of people, the animals and the environment.
Another problem is that businesses are not democratic, but have a strict hierarchy in who gives orders and who takes orders. They also have seen an increase in power and rights over the years. We're now at the point where some large businesses are almost directly influencing government and/or are more powerful than some countries.
Some results of this are that a majority of US citizens are in favor of a European-style healthcare system, but the healthcare industry is essentially blocking it. Another major problem is the influence of the fossil fuel industry and how it's blocking action on climate change.

North Korea is a dictatorship with it's own set of problems. Cuba is actually an interesting case. It is a relatively poor country, has been subject to unjustifiable sanctions by de US for decades, and yet it has reached a level of healthcare comparable to most developed countries. It ranked 39th on WHO's list for best healthcare, just after the US at 37. The Netherlands is 17th, by the way. WHO also has held up Cuba as an example for organizing healthcare.

Regarding Chomsky, I didn't bring up bias at all. No-one is unbiased, including Chomsky. But is he wrong?

 

You only pay a really small deductible for each visit, until you've paid a certain amount. After that amount, every visit becomes free throughout that year. On january 1st it "resets".

The time and process though is the same. GP first and he/she will refer you. You normally get an appointment within a week, depending a little bit on the cause though.

 

In Spain, the public healthcare system is completely free (insurance-free), including regular GP and specialists appointments, urgencies and operations. You can see a GP (almost) immediately (you can usually set an appointment for the same day); in case you couldn't, there're urgency GPs in every healthcare centers. If your urgency's very urgent (hmm), you can go to the nearest hospital. In case you need to see a specialist, you have to visit your GP first. Specialists appointments aren't immediate, so you'll have to wait a bit depending on the urgency and the kind of specialty (for example, ENT appointments take 1-2 weeks, but the gynecology ones take months). Drugs are "subsidized": you'll pay a 0%-around 40% of the market price, depending on your income.

 

Canadian here (currently in Alberta).

Yes, I can see my GP at any time, either via a set appointment or short notice by simply 'walking in'.
In cases of emergency, the Hospital emergency department will see you. Depending on the severity of your emergency you may have to wait, depending how busy they are, or they may see you immediately if its an urgent case.
The biggest issues with causing bad waiting times in emergency rooms are 1) Obesity, 2) smokers, 3) people going to the ER for every stupid little reason.
Same with specialized care doctors such as ENTs. Waiting times can be long (months), but depending on severity of your case you will be seen rather quickly (as was the case with my tinnitus, as I was seen by an ENT withing two weeks of my GP referring me).

Healthcare in Canada is free to the public and paid for by taxes. Other health services such as dentists, eye doctors, massages, acupuncture, etc are not covered, and requires you to purchase additional health insurance if you want these services covered.
Exceptions in regards to eye doctors is anyone under 18 and anyone above 65 (here in Alberta anyway) will get diagnostic services for free, but still pay for frames, lenses, contacts, etc.

Yes, and no. In the end, it depends on the doctor and staff. Mostly doctors are good and care, but of course you can get a doctor that will look at you for a minute, write you a prescription and send you out the door. In cases like these one simply tells him where to go and you make another appointment with someone else.


I can also somewhat speak to the healthcare system in Switzerland.

There, healthcare isnt paid for by the government, so you will need to purchase health insurance. It is mandatory to have it, ranges from between 600 to 1200+/month (my sister is paying 800/month currently for her family of 4). It is law that the government helps to pay for your health insurance should you not be able to afford it due to whatever circumstance, as healthcare is considered a basic human right.

The health insurance coveres everything; GP visits, diagnostic services, dentists, eye doctors, emergency room visits, ambulances, etc.

 

I agree with the point you made above. We need stronger antitrust laws to ensure that all of our industries are characterized by competition.

You are complaining about powerful business interests, and yet you are just repeating what you read in the newspapers published by those in power. The way I see it, the Marxism that you practice is just a reincarnation of Christianity (with its concepts of the original sin and atonement). I don't know much about the techniques they use to break people free from cults, so I won't be investing a lot of time into trying to wake you up.

Not if the company is competitive and cares about making a profit in the long run. Saying that something comes "at the expense of people", is as valid as saying that people get their treatment at the expense of the firm. Most of the innovations that made the modern world were made as a result of the profit motive and despite all of the regulations.

As for "climate change", if there is any pressure on the scientists to favour a side, then it can no longer be called "science". It had been well documented that scientists who provide evidence contradicting the "climate change" narrative place their careers in danger. So, until things change, none of this field can be considered to be credible. Talking about "climate change" is just another ritual in that religion of yours.

Every country that tried socialism during the 20th century had to become a dictatorship. Socialism can't survive otherwise. It is a feature, not a bug.

As for Cuba, see
http://econweb.umd.edu/~davis/eventpapers/CUBA.pdf
"Finally, our paper provides an answer to a long running Cuban controversy, the road not taken. Did the revolutionary regime raise income per capita relative to what would have occurred if the revolution had not taken place? There are no good estimates of current Cuban income so our conclusions on this point are tentative. As best as we can tell, current income is well below its pre-revolutionary peak suggesting that despite possible accomplishments elsewhere the revolution permanently reduced Cuban income per capita."

 

I made specific remarks about business interests and hierarchy, but now you're lumping my ideas in with Marxism (and later on socialism) and religion. If you continue to put words in my mouth and make personal attacks, I'm no longer interested in this conversation.

Any large company is forced to focus on short-term profits. One reason is because investors want to see profits soon, or they'll move to another company. Another reason is that any company focusing on long-term profits with the accompanying investments will be driven out of the market by companies seeking short-term profit.

What I mean with "at the expense of people" is that for-profit institutions have an interest in decreasing wages, longer work hours, a cheaper workplace with less health and safety regulations etc. etc.
The companies would take care of their workers if they were also the consumers. Ford did this a long time ago. But at this point, capital can move all over the world and will settle in places where there are far more people than jobs. For example, the electronics industry in China and the clothing industry in Bangladesh.

This is not true. Most innovations are the result of publicly funded research. Let's take a smartphone, which has a microprocessor, memory, GPS, a touchscreen, a battery, etc. It connects to the internet and does signal processing. All developed at (mostly US) universities, initially meant for the miliary, and paid out of the military budget. These were later adapted for consumer use by the general public. Some, such as the transistor, were developed at AT&T's Bell Labs at the time when AT&T was given a monopoly by the US government and acted almost as a government-run institution. Bell Labs also gave us Unix, C, C++... The basis of modern computing science applications.

I don't see why the scientific method that brought us the modern world would suddenly fail completely when it comes to climate science. Surely, there will have been isolated cases of what you have described, as there are in any large field, but there isn't any evidence that climate science or change as a whole is a fraud.

On the contrary, there have been major efforts by the fossil fuel industry to cause confusion over whether climate change is real. Both trough think tanks likes Heartland and direct government lobbying. That's because the fossil fuel industry realizes very well that climate change is happening and that the general public will rightfully demand regulations sooner or later, which in turn will harm profits.
They cannot provide evidence to the contrary, as there isn't any to speak of, so the tactic became to discredit the science and advocate "skepticism" towards established facts.

Just to clarify, I'm not advocating a jump or revolution to some kind of socialism. Any kind of system that is imposed on people will almost certainly fail. What I am in favor of, is to regulate for-profit institutions and to reform unjustifiable hierarchies with something more democratic. These steps are possible within the current system. I was originally talking about health care, which is a good example, but it does apply to other sectors as well.

It's depends on what you call "socialism" exactly, but there hasn't been a country so far which has tried to make its society more democratic and somehow ended up as a dictatorship. That's simply impossible. There have been attempts at "state socialism" or "state capitalism", which combine socialist ideas with an authoritarian government, if that's what you're referring to, but that's not a model of society that I'd advocate.

What I would advocate could probably be best described as anarcho-syndicalism and the closest any country has come to this is Catalonia during 1936 - 1939. It was ultimately conquered from the outside, and did not evolve into a dictatorship.

I'm afraid you'll have to excuse me for not having the time to dive into a 60 page paper. I've browsed through it and read bits here and there, but as far as I can see, this paper does not mention the harsh US sanctions imposed shortly after the revolution anywhere. The embargo not only impacted Cuba's wealth, but also had humanitarian consequences (food, medicine, general health). With this major factor not taken into account, the conclusion that the revolution led to less wealth cannot be drawn.
Just to be sure, I never held up Cuba as a model society. I only used it as an example of a poor country with relatively good health care, purely because of the way it's organized.

 

healthcare in usa sucks...that's it.