Calling All Non-Americans!! Would You Trade Health Care Systems With Us?

[Badger]

The ongoing health care demagoguery debate inevitably has conservatives shrieking from the rooftops about the horrors of socialized medicine. (Duhn duhn da duhhhn!) Basically they promise that if Obama's health care plan is passed (or Clinton's before it, or LBJ's, or Truman's, or FDR's) than Americans can expect to wait months or years for regular doctor visits or routine minor surgery, and even those will be administered with the efficiency and concern for the patient as a North Korean Gulag. "Do you want to wind up like those poor bastards in Canada and Europe?" they cry, "who come over here on steam tramps desperately seeking the fine care only our free market can provide--to most people at least--the insured and upper middle class anyway?"

But is that really the case? My exposure to Britons is that even conservatives there, while debating on the amount of funding the system warrants and tinkering at the edges, near universally support their single-payer system. It's analogous to social security: with some debate over partial privatization (W's Wall Street welfare plan as an exception), basically all but those most extreme fringe wingnuts don't want to abolish it for a free market system.

Canada I'm a bit more familiar with. I don't know of any Canadian that wants to trade their system for theirs. A friend of mine on a trip here broke a bone, and refused to enmesh himself in the American health insurance system, choosing instead to bind the bone up until his friends travelling with him could get him across the border to be treated by the Canadian single-payer system! And he had a decent job with the main paper in Toronto. Conservative always say this is due to "cultural differences" between Americans and Canada or England, as if Canadians slither around on tentacles rather than walking upright, or being ripped off by health insurance conglomerates is part of the American work ethic.

Anyhoo, the point of this poll is also to elicit comments from non-Americans about their own countries' health care system, both pros and cons, but ultimately to compare their countries' system with America's.

This all may be a bit misleading as, lest we forget, Obama's not proposing a single payer system, but it might help put some of the major criticism of any health care reform in context.

Fire Away!

[minionofmidas]

The complaints about Britain's excellent system of public medicine can be summed up in one sentence, really. A conservative doctor's complaint. "They [meaning the patients] behave as if they own the place." They do own it. That's the point.

[Bono]

Yes, in a heartbeat.

And Lewis, I'm sorry, but that's not true at all. Complaints about Britain's system (which is far from excelent, Germany's is way better) are almost all rationing related, not complaints of doctors about unruly patients.

[minionofmidas]

I'm talking of complaints by people who use it.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

As Sarah P would say: Thanks... but no thanks.

[Badger]

Yes, in a heartbeat.

And Lewis, I'm sorry, but that's not true at all. Complaints about Britain's system (which is far from excelent, Germany's is way better) are almost all rationing related, not complaints of doctors about unruly patients.

OK, why?

I'm looking for non-Americans to elaborate a little on their experience with their health care system and why you wish to keep/scrap it. I believe there is a lot of ignorance being spouted off about the experience of "socialized medicine" in the health care debate right now (and likely much more to come), and I want to inject a little reality into all the rhetoric.

[Hatman 🍁]

Why would I trade a free service for an HMO? That would be insane.

[Hash]

Obviously not.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No. Because I'd be dead. Several times over actually.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Nope.

[Bono]

Why would I trade a free service for an HMO? That would be insane.

I don't know why so many people seem to be under the impression that HMOs are the only type of health insurance available in the US: They're not even the type of plan most people have.

[Bono]

Yes, in a heartbeat.

And Lewis, I'm sorry, but that's not true at all. Complaints about Britain's system (which is far from excelent, Germany's is way better) are almost all rationing related, not complaints of doctors about unruly patients.

OK, why?

I'm looking for non-Americans to elaborate a little on their experience with their health care system and why you wish to keep/scrap it. I believe there is a lot of ignorance being spouted off about the experience of "socialized medicine" in the health care debate right now (and likely much more to come), and I want to inject a little reality into all the rhetoric.

Why? Well, the waiting lists obviously. The crumbling infrastructure is also a reason, even though there have been improvements on that lately (note I'm talking only about Portugal).

There are waiting lists of months only to see a specialist, let alone to start treatment. Moreover, there is a significant delay in adopting the latest treatments, and even then they are rationed because they are so expensive. *rolls eyes*

The thing that disgusts me most is the delay in cancer treatment and surgeries whereupon many people whose cancer was curable when diagnosed end up sentenced to death.

The fact that the judicial system is very reluctant to punish negligent doctors doesn't help either.

[Gustaf]

Not given what I've heard abou the American system, no.

There is really, as far as I know, only one serious problem with Swedish health care and that's the waiting lists. People sometimes wait for years with broken hips and stuff like that because the queue for an operation is so long.

And, of course, if the state tells you "no, your medicine is too expensive, we're gonna let you die" I imagine you're screwed in a way which is worse than under a private system.

[Nym90]

Will be interesting to see if anyone other than Bono or Richius votes yes.

[A18]

When a government program is older than you are, it's hard to imagine going without it. Take government schools, Social Security, the post office monopoly, or anti-trust laws. None of these has the slightest justification, but each will outlive us all.

[opebo]

Why would I trade a free service for an HMO? That would be insane.

I don't know why so many people seem to be under the impression that HMOs are the only type of health insurance available in the US: They're not even the type of plan most people have.

True, many people have no 'insurance' at all, and many that do have it lose it once they become sick.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'll trade with you Bono... you can have our system and fund the world's drug research and we'll have cheaper, universal, rationed care.

[afleitch]

No.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Not given what I've heard abou the American system, no.

There is really, as far as I know, only one serious problem with Swedish health care and that's the waiting lists. People sometimes wait for years with broken hips and stuff like that because the queue for an operation is so long.

The waiting lists depends slightly on where you live though. In Stockholm and other crowded places I've heard of people waiting for that long, but around here the list is quite short. My sister has had quite a lot of troubles with her legs and the longest she's ever had to wait for surgery was two months, and that was something very minor. It's still a serious issue they're so long some places though.

I also doubt the trouble with the waiting lists would be eliminated if we didn't have public healthcare considering the fact that the waitinglists when it comes to dental is even longer, and dental is not public. People can wait two years just to get braces.   

[Ban my account ffs!]

The problem in countries with socialized medicine is not a quality of care problem, but a funding problem.

If you paid the exorbitant prices in taxes that we pay in insurance premiums, you'd have care just like ours.

The problem is that the government wants to lower the cost for everybody, so quality takes a hit.

This is why I've said the government should insure children, the elderly, the poor, and the disabled.  Private insurers can cover healthy, working adults.

And there is nothing wrong with a supplemental insurance industry rising up for people who want to pay extra to receive more timely care.  I just want everybody covered and I want doctors and patients deciding on treatment, not insurance companies.

[afleitch]

It's pretty blatant people are voting "no" to make a point.  Our healthcare is clearly far superior and would prove beneficial to the dominant demographic on the forum.  Though I suppose it is the "Political Debate" section so I should expect people to vote politically.

I voted no to make a point about the NHS. I have personal reasons as to why I am supportive of the NHS for the services and care they have provided myself and my family. I don't know if the American system is materially 'better' or not. All I know is that I could not have asked for anything more than the NHS provided me.

[Smid]

I voted no because I like our system here. We have a government health system and a private health system. The government system has pretty bad waiting lists, but the private system removes some of the people who would be otherwise on the waiting list, thus shortening it. I don't have private health insurance, but I will be getting it within the next twelve months.

[Platypus]

I voted no because I like our system here. We have a government health system and a private health system. The government system has pretty bad waiting lists, but the private system removes some of the people who would be otherwise on the waiting list, thus shortening it. I don't have private health insurance, but I will be getting it within the next twelve months.

Yet another no, and for the same basic reasons Smid outlined.

We get to make a choice - and if you're not privately insured, you can still be treated as a publicly covered patient at a private hospital in an emergency, and the public system works really well for non-electives. The waiting lists are horrific for elective surgery and dental, but for emergency care, the public system is absolutely amazing. My mum worked for decades at the Epworth hospital - easily the best Private hospital in Melbourne - and currently works in healthcare infrastructure and operation planning, and I've heard a bit of talk about the shortfalls and successes of the system here. The best success has been that all emergency departments are run regardless of whether they're public or private - if you live in Richmond, you go to Epworth, whether you're privately covered or not; if you have angina you head to the Austin, one of the world's leading cardio hospitals, and public, whether you're privately covered or not.

Plus we have the life-saving Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

EDIT: And also note that Australia is one of the world's best producers of new medicines per capita, despite the evil socialism

[Hatman 🍁]

Our healthcare is clearly far superior. 

lol

[Ban my account ffs!]

Our healthcare is clearly far superior. 

lol

If money is not an issue for you, our healthcare is far superior.  Our research hospitals are the best in the world... and of course we have the world famous Mayo Clinic.

It is a joke that the only time Minnesotans see celebrities is when they get their lives saved at the Mayo Clinic.

But I believe we can find a system that covers everybody while maintaining efficiency and quality.
I just tend to think that the European/Canadian style is better than our current system.  Neither are the best option, though.