• herescunty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    10 months ago

    U.K. here. “Government pays the bill” is exactly how it works over here. You can just walk into a hospital, be treated and walk out without paying anything or holding any particular insurance. It’s not a GREAT service by any stretch, but it’s free at point of use. We have a booming private insurance sector too - I pay a separate private insurance because although I’m absolutely pro NHS, I wouldn’t bet my life on it.

    • palitu@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      10 months ago

      In Australia, private health insurance is better for non life threatening stuff.

      Emergencies is where the public health system shines. They have a lot more practice with trauma and ED stuff than private.

      I have private too.

      • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        i always say to americans: medicare keeps you alive and able to be productive, private insurance keeps you comfortable

        … but medicare also drastically reduces private premiums

        • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          I very much appreciate your last sentence.

          Medicare is a sad shell of its former self, good luck seeing a GP or a specialist for free these days. Want a specialist to check out your breasts? That’ll be $400 for the first visit and $210 out of pocket for all your follow ups, $800 (out of pocket) just for a biopsy if you need it. (Rough numbers from a friend). And consider that most women develop some kind of breast growths in their life time.

          Sure it’s not US levels of price gouging, but heck. Medicare is being lost and we’re not fighting for it.

          I won’t be satisfied until private health is dead. Fuck private health.

          • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            i wouldn’t say until private health is dead: there’s always a certain level of comfort or pseudo-science choice that i don’t think should be socialised… for example, my private health covers “alternative therapies” which should certainly not be covered by social healthcare, but people should be given the option to spend their money on that if they want to

            same thing with private rooms, better hospital meals, etc: these things should be optional extras that you can pay more for

            with that said, dental, optical, psychology, physio, and nutrition are all things that my private health covers that medicare should cover or should cover more

            • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Oh yeah, that’s true (the alternative therapies), and for extras that aren’t at all better medical care

              • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                yup:

                public is for keeping as many people as healthy as possible as efficiently as possible: it’s about optimisation

                private is for things that you want but don’t need that would make the care of others less efficient without additional money, and where you can pay for that extra why not allow people to insure for it?

    • SamsonSeinfelder@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      My point was that a chart where your doctor sends the government the bill would be misleading. National Health Service in England, NHS Scotland, NHS Wales and Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland pay the bill (and are basically the government) and are the names people are using to either blame or praise the work of these systems. In a country as divided over the government work as the US is, I think it is a bad idea to say “Government pays the bills” as it neglects all the work and effort (and funding problems) that the subsidiary has to do. Government is just allocating the funds for the NHS to pay out to the doctors.

    • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      This is why an argument for simplicity doesn’t really fly. Agree the US could really use a better government based health system (and yes, there is a sort of option now, but it’s a mess) but saying it’s simpler on a systems level isn’t really true. Most countries indeed have both systems to one degree or another going on at the same time.

      • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        from a CONSUMER perspective it’s FAR simpler

        from a system perspective it’s far more complex

        … but you literally never have to worry about that

        living in australia i’ve thought about health care less than i’ve thought about my own health care in the US and i’ve been there a grand total of 6 weeks in my whole life

        need a hospital? just go… need a doctor? just go… need medication? just get it… don’t think; just do it… the doctors are there to triage; you should not have to without any medical training

        and ON TOP OF THAT: just do it whenever you need and don’t worry…

        we

        still

        pay

        less