Tell me about your healthcare system experiences

[Pumaman]

Having recently watched SiCKO as well, I have to say I found it really quite shocking.

I'd always assumed that in America, if you didn't have health insurance then you were screwed, but if you did have insurance then you got the best healthcare in the world. Having seen the film and the way that the health insurance companies act like, well, insurance companies, I'm more convinced than ever that a state-run health system is the way it should be. Nobody should have to choose which finger to reattach, or have to phone their insurance company after a car crash before being allowed treatment.

As others have said, here in the UK the health system is far from perfect, but at least I know that when I need it I can get treatment without worrying about the cost or the fact that I don't have health insurance. Yes, there are long waiting lists for some operations -- when I had a hernia, I had to wait 9 months for the operation to repair it. But it wasn't a life-threatening problem and I didn't have to pay a penny to get it done.

What are taxes and national debt like in England?  In the film, he only talks about France having equivalent taxes to the US but they certainly don't have an equivalent war machine.  Britain, I would suspect, is a better standard to measure against.

This was one of the dubious points in the film -- he interviews a single well-off French family as if to somehow prove that French taxes were low, which just doesn't make sense... he could have found a rich family in any country to make that "point".

Yes, European taxes are higher than the US, because we have to support the social systems via tax. Here in the UK, the standard tax rate is 30%, and approximately 20% of the taxes collected are spent on the health system. That means that effectively I pay 6% of my monthly wage as "health insurance", which seems fair to me.
How much does private health insurance cost in the US as a comparison?

[Nikolas]

My father is a doctor. Retired from the university but still active as a doctor.

And we were discussing various issues, and he was talking about how hard it is to change something bad to good, and how easy it is to corrupt something good to make it awful.

This is what he told me (can't verify if it's true or not, but I'm ready to bet it is. My daddy told me ). FDA (http://www.fda.gov/) is the organisation, in the States, that deals with making sure drugs are effective and with no sideffects. Up until very recently it was the best org in the world, and there were draconian tests (which took years to complete) to make sure that every drug in the market was as safe as possible.

Certainly this was a problem for the drugs lobby. So... since the drugs were already out, in other parts of the world, the companies started complaining, on behalf of the patients, that they need the drugs, especially in heavy cases, cancer, AIDS, etc. "The drug is there, why don't they give it to us?" Very effective way to put pressure on.

But in order for FDA to speed up the process, they need much more personel, which means a huge budget. Under realtively new law, the funding for this extra personel comes from the drug companies!

Nice huh? (He's not seen sicko yet, but he will when he gets back to Greece)

[shbaz]

What are taxes and national debt like in England?  In the film, he only talks about France having equivalent taxes to the US but they certainly don't have an equivalent war machine.  Britain, I would suspect, is a better standard to measure against.

This was one of the dubious points in the film -- he interviews a single well-off French family as if to somehow prove that French taxes were low, which just doesn't make sense... he could have found a rich family in any country to make that "point".

Yes, European taxes are higher than the US, because we have to support the social systems via tax. Here in the UK, the standard tax rate is 30%, and approximately 20% of the taxes collected are spent on the health system. That means that effectively I pay 6% of my monthly wage as "health insurance", which seems fair to me.
How much does private health insurance cost in the US as a comparison?

The standard tax rate in the US is about 30%, when you combine Federal/State/Local taxes.  It's a proven fact that if you feed money into the country, no matter where it goes, it helps the economy.  Rather than feed it into education and medicine the US feeds it to the military machine and claims taxes would have to go up to get socialized medicine.

Private health insurance for a young (20s) single healthy man such as myself costs $100 a month, with $100 extra being subsidized by my employer (after one year of employment), so that's $200 a month.  I think it only covers expenses up to $50k though and has lots of exclusions for pre-existing conditions and certain types of injury.  The deductible (amount to be paid by the injured) was pretty high, like $500.  So it only covers pretty major/expensive stuff and you're always out $500.  For a whole family adequate insurance can be as high as $1k a month.  The charges, deductibles, maximum awards, etc all vary by plan of course.

I can't forget the quote by Nixon in the film, it was something like since the motivation was for profit no BS or minor health issues would make it through, so the incentive was in the right direction, rather than everything being checked out because medical service was free.  It gave me this sick feeling inside.

I didn't mention my experiences with the health industry which have been all standard shots, etc.  My dad had good insurance when I was a kid and I never had to worry.  Since I've been on my own I've had two workplace injuries that were both covered entirely by my employer's accident insurance plans.  I went to doctors immediately and never had problems.  Both had follow-up appointments.  One was to remove some shrapnel from my eye and one was stitches for a major cut on my knuckle.

[bicilotti]

What country do you live in?

What is your experience with and opinion of your healthcare system? 

Do you find your clinics and hospitals organized and efficient, or are there people waiting for weeks and months to get in?

What is the price of public healthcare, and is it worth it?

Any input on this topic will be greatly appreciated. 

Italy. An italian citizen pays around 50% or more (sic) of what we earn in an year to feed the government machine (that includes all sort of taxes: VAT, Capital Gain, excises, income etc.).
Healt care is mostly free for all, but things like dentistry, optometry, prescription drugs ar paid by the consumer either because they're not covered or because the waiting time is too long.
The quality of the service varies between Regione and Regione (= land administrative denomination, like State in the Us or Lander in Deutschland). Some of them offers top notch technology, some others have found to have poorly trained personnel or even dangerous medical machinery. That do not affect the overall quality, because if you will undergo a cure treatment that is not available in your place you can move in another without any additional costs other than the trip's expenses (but it obviously affect the government balance as it has to pay a sort "double" fee, one to feed that Regione hospitals and then another one for actually getting the job done).

Both my parents suffered from cancer (colon and prostate). Mother's surgery was paid by the state, Father chose a Private Clinic to avoid the long waiting list (his prostate cancer is something not impossible to cure in the first stages of the disease but if you don't act promptly it can lead to serious damage to your body, he did not want to risk).

It's difficult to compare to other countries. I wish I could met a well off american with a solid insurance and ask him how different are the cures/services between here and there. I feel the vast majority of italian people feel proud to have a National Healt System and are willing to pass through some longhis waiting lines without any problem as far as the service at no or small cost.

Saw Sicko, didn't like it very much (I frankly felt it described an edulcorated situation when talking about national healt in europe / from an aesthetical point of view I don't think he is talented: i prefer much more Errol Morris ). This quiet thread is probably more frank and sincere in reporting the various pluses and minuses of each system.

[shbaz]

It's difficult to compare to other countries. I wish I could met a well off american with a solid insurance and ask him how different are the cures/services between here and there. I feel the vast majority of italian people feel proud to have a National Healt System and are willing to pass through some longhis waiting lines without any problem as far as the service at no or small cost.

The American system has terrible doctors and good doctors.. only they're sorted by hospital and price, so the health care can be top notch or it can suck pretty bad.  In my hometown (Muskogee, OK, USA) lots of people when being loaded into an ambulance request to be taken to Tulsa, OK because it's a bigger city with better hospitals and they don't want to die.  Of course not everyone who goes into Muskogee hospital dies, but they definitely don't have the same recovery rates as the best hospitals in Tulsa.

But basically, I don't have health insurance and pretty much everywhere is out of my price range.  So with this "better" system our politicians (supported by the medical lobby) claim we have, the rich have excellent health care and the poor/middle class have mediocre or none.  Even while paying for insurance health care still costs (deductibles) because the insurance companies don't want you going for treatment too often.

So the question is, is having better health care for the rich worth sacrificing the health care for everyone else?  Our politicians, who are very rich, say yes.

[bicilotti]

So the question is, is having better health care for the rich worth sacrificing the health care for everyone else?  Our politicians, who are very rich, say yes.

Forgive me if I am too bold, but a question arises in my mind. I am not an US citizen and I've just few friends in the US, so maybe what I'm writing here is total rubbish.

US are an advanced democracy that place a powerful weapon in the hands of their citizen: the vote. Your vote is quite "strong" if compared to the one in force in Italy. We, for example, vote for our MPs but we cannot vote directly for out President: that leaves some really important decision in the hands of the elected and, sometimes, their interests do not coincide tho the ones of the voters.
You can directly vote for your president and the short time between one election and another (4 years president, 2 years mid term and some other short term for the election of the senate's members, if I am not mistaken). That leaves me puzzled: if you don't really like it why vote for someones who likes it?

Powerful lobbies are operating all around the world, not only in the US, but I feel no one can be so powerful to influence the feelings of the voters in such an important and serious decision.

In so many words, I feel that if there is not a National Healt System in the US is because the citizen of US (overall) do not love it. Far from me to tell if that is a good policy or a bad one, just wanted to know if what I think is right or not.

[shbaz]

Oh please, don't get me started on that.  Corporations pay for campaigns, which draw voters.  Voters hear what the media tells them and the media will not run stories unfavorable to the corporations who support them by ad revenue.

These corporations include the medical insurance companies, who are extremely powerful.

[shadow9d9]

So the question is, is having better health care for the rich worth sacrificing the health care for everyone else?  Our politicians, who are very rich, say yes.

Forgive me if I am too bold, but a question arises in my mind. I am not an US citizen and I've just few friends in the US, so maybe what I'm writing here is total rubbish.

US are an advanced democracy that place a powerful weapon in the hands of their citizen: the vote. Your vote is quite "strong" if compared to the one in force in Italy. We, for example, vote for our MPs but we cannot vote directly for out President: that leaves some really important decision in the hands of the elected and, sometimes, their interests do not coincide tho the ones of the voters.
You can directly vote for your president and the short time between one election and another (4 years president, 2 years mid term and some other short term for the election of the senate's members, if I am not mistaken). That leaves me puzzled: if you don't really like it why vote for someones who likes it?

Powerful lobbies are operating all around the world, not only in the US, but I feel no one can be so powerful to influence the feelings of the voters in such an important and serious decision.

In so many words, I feel that if there is not a National Healt System in the US is because the citizen of US (overall) do not love it. Far from me to tell if that is a good policy or a bad one, just wanted to know if what I think is right or not.

We do not vote directly for the president exactly.. we vote through the electoral college system, so if your state is heavily dominated by one party or the other, your vote will end up meaning nothing.  Additionally, most campaigns for any reform is heavily funded against by interest groups determined to confuse you with skewed logic and outright lies/exaggerations.  Since people tend to be afraid of change, things don't change.

The U.S. has become too big to have a cohesive community.  It is incredibly fractured and huge,so it is very very difficult for things to change, which works perfectly into the politicians' hands.

My wife has 3 months worth of medical coverage after giving birth and then it goes up to $1000 a month for the 3 of us(including baby).  We still have copays and pay $10-30 per 30 days worth of prescriptions.  She is a teacher.