Universal healthcare feedback from those who have it

M

MattV1984

New member
Hello everyone! Hoping to get some feedback from individuals living outside the U.S. or that have lived outside the U.S. for an extended amount of time about universal healthcare.

I recently saw a documentary about healthcare in the U.S. that proposed the need for universal healthcare here. The film maker visited numerous industrialized countries with universal healthcare interviewing citizens who all seemed very pleased with the way universal healthcare was working for them (aside from the occasional complaint about taxes). I have been thinking a lot about the state of healthcare in the U.S. lately because I have a few health problems that I have not taken care of due to lack of insurance and this documentary along with a few others I have seen recently that highlighted healthcare have gotten me really interested in the universal healthcare system.

If you live in a country with universal healthcare or have in the past I would greatly appreciate some insight into your thoughts and feelings about the system because all the opposition I hear to it hear in the U.S. seems to come down to the same tired argument that the government has no place in healthcare and if they take over taxes will be unmanageable, healthcare will be horrible, and healthcare employees will barely make a living.

- What do you think of universal healthcare?
- When you need medical assistance is there really crazy waiting times or common occurrences of worsened conditions due to waiting for medical assistance?
- Is the quality of service good?
- Are the medical facilities, staff, and supplies good?
- Any other comments on universal healthcare?

I greatly appreciate any feedback you can provide on your experiences with universal healthcare!
 
We have the NHS in England and I've never had a problem with it, ever. I've been in hospital for various things over the last 10 years and although the waiting can be long (I once had to wait 4 hours to be seen when I had a torn ligament. Ouch!!). Most of the time I've been I've been seen quickly and dealt with well. The staff are all over-worked and a little rushed but I've never been treated badly at all.

Everyone in England has the right and choice to "go private" if they wish. Then you get "better" care in that you get seen very quickly and operations and stuff get sorted out faster.

I love the NHS :) Stuff like dental care is free if you are in education and still very cheap. As are antibiotics and stuff (free if you're in education as well).

Many people bitch about it but I'm happy to pay my taxes in exchange for free health care. Ambulances come to your house free of charge in emergencies, you don't get asked for insurance details before you have operations or anything. My partner is American and absolutely loves that fact that it's free :)
 
We have universal health care in Canada and for the most part I am pleased with it.
We still have to pay out of pocket for things like prescription drugs, eye care, glasses, EMS, dental, and some other things that don't immediately come to mind.
Depending on what you need - wait times can be short or long. Urgent people get pushed to the front and 'non urgent' things get pushed back if needed.
The staff, quality and facilities are all good in my opinion. There is room for improvement in many areas but some areas have state of the art. Rural communities are really lacking but the urban centres are very good.
I really like that we don't have to pay out of pocket for most things - that was we can get even minor complaints looked at before they become a problem without worrying about the financial aspect of things. There are pro and cons to any system and each system will have it's share of problems. Let me know if you have any questions about Canada's health care and I can try to answer them.
 
Thank you for taking the time to provide me with some feedback Sunflower and ijustwannabefit, it is really appreciated! =)
 
I used to live in Germany and am now living in the UK, both countries with universal healthcare. I see a lot of differences though.

In Germany, until about 2 years ago, dental care was always completely free. Unless you wanted something out of the ordinary, or treatment that was cosmetic, you didn't have to pay. If I called the dentist, I could usually get an appointment within the same week. If I had toothache, I could go to any dentist, at any time, and would usually be treated within an hour.

In the UK treatment is free if you're on a low income, pension, or a student. Kids are free as well (I think, but don't quote me on it). You have to register with a dentist, and when I first registered here, it took me nearly 4 months before I could get an appointment. In case of an emergency, there are certain emergency dentists to go to, but I have yet to see one that will do more than just rip the tooth out. Not gently, either.

Doctor's appointments in Germany could be had easily the next day. Most doctor's surgeries I went to had their own x-ray equipment, so you didn't have to traipse to a hospital to get x-rays taken, and then wait for a week before getting the results. Same went for blood tests and things like that.

In the UK, so far, doctor's appointments are pretty much the same way, if I call today, I can be sure to get an appointment within the next 2 days. Downside is that most places here are surgeries with more than one doctor, and there seems to be a lot of changing people around, so you can't always be sure to see the same doctor twice in a row. In Germany, I had the same doctor for 10 years, which I preferred.
Also, for x-rays they will usually send you to hospital. I had to have an x-ray of my ankle taken the other day, and I waited 4 hours, then found out that my GP had filled out the x-ray card wrong and actually put the wrong ankle down to be x-rayed.

In Germany, waiting times in ERs depend entirely on how busy it is. Usually you can be seen pretty quickly, but obviously there is only so much staff that can take care of people.

It seems similar in the UK, even though they have left me sitting with an autistic child which was slipping in and out of consciousness due to a high temperature, and kept having fever cramps, for over 2 hours before seeing him. And that was not a particularly busy day.

The biggest difference I see is in the hospitals themselves. I am a nurse, and have worked in various hospitals throughout Germany. When I visited a friend in hopsital during her cancer treatment, I was, bluntly said, disgusted. The so-called state-of-the art cancer unit consisted of a long corridor which had bays on the left and the right, housing 6 beds each, only seperated by curtains. 2 bathrooms for the entire ward.

Where I come from, we've got rooms. Usually with two beds, worst case scenario three. Each room has its own bathroom, and a door that can be closed.

I also found the hygiene standards in the hospitals here in the UK extremely low, and the nurses seemed rushed and overworked. When my friend suddenly had a problem with one of the draining tubes in her wound coming loose, the nurses didn't bother to show up, even though my friend had actually started to bleed heavily. I ended up just taking care of it myself, stopping the bleeding and repositioning and fixing the drain tube. The nurse showed up about 10 minutes after I was done, and didn't seem bothered.

I've heard people saying the opposite, that they were treated brilliantly and all, so my guess is that it might be a regional thing, but obviously I can only go by what I witnessed myself.

In general though, universal healthcare should be standard in every civilised country. I mean, to withhold medical care from somebody because they can't afford it? Really?

As said above, waiting times depend widely on circumstances. The worse your injury or condition is, the sooner you usually get treated, but the main point is, you do get treated eventually.

Again, quality can vary, but overall it is okay (or seems to be anyway).

The facilities and staff are mostly good, if a little overworked, especially recently due to cuts that have been made to the national health service in the UK.
 
I grew up in England/Scotland till 26 and moved to Texas for the last 10 yrs so have experience of both.

In terms of delivery of care I can't say theres a lot to pick between the 2. I've always been relatively healthy, surprisingly enough. I've had a few trips to ER in England that were swift given that a sports injury (cut knee on stone playing football) isn't exactly life threatening and a strained wrist from drunk push-ups are not #1 priorities.
As I recall I was treated both times within an hour or two which was fair enough as other people had more pressing concerns. In the US it's a lot faster to get an appointment and facilities are more redily available and geared towards the patient though I've never had an ailment that needed repeat visits or overnight stays.

In the US it seems medicine is very much a business rather than a service. Cost is very high, even with insurance.

Although taxes are higher in the UK, the medical costs here are still a lot higher here in the USA.

For example I pay $272/month for medical/dental/optical insurance (my employer covers 80% of the insurance costs. This $1080 is not taxed. Yet.). There is also out-of-pocket costs such as Dr/Dentists visits and commonly I'll be paying $100 for a visit depending on whatever tests are done. The world of medical billing is a mystery to me (and apparently insurance companies) and it can take months to get a finalized bill for a Dr visit if a few tests are run. Of course everyone's insurance is different.

For out-of-pocket costs most employers set up a savings account for you which you may fund up to $4500 (tax exempt) to only be used on medical costs. I've noticed that oin the last year they're more and more picky about what costs are eligable and what is not. In fact they've mad it so difficult to make a claim this year I'm considering not contributing to it next year and just claiming back from IRS at tax time.

So taking the insurance and OOP costs together, my familys medical costs are about $650/month (actually more like $700 with over the counter stuff that is exempt from claims).

UK taxes are certainly higher but the overall cost is important too.

Most people here in the US seem absolutely terrified of universal healthcare and regard it as almost treasonous. The venom is unreal. But it really isn't that much different. Slower and cheaper. Cancer survival is better in the US but overall life expectancy is lower. 50Million not covered here and the many people go bankrupt from medical bills.

People SHOULD pay to see a Dr in the UK though. It'd help the NHS a lot by trimming the attention seekers back a bit in a Dr's office.
 
Iain1974 said:
People SHOULD pay to see a Dr in the UK though. It'd help the NHS a lot by trimming the attention seekers back a bit in a Dr's office.
Click to expand...

So those who can't afford healthcare and are seriously ill just die?

Please tell me you are joking.
 
I don't think he means that--I think he's making a point that the people who clog up the doctors with runny noses and sore throats make it harder for those who are actually ill to get seen as fast as they should.
 
Sunflower said:
I don't think he means that--I think he's making a point that the people who clog up the doctors with runny noses and sore throats make it harder for those who are actually ill to get seen as fast as they should.
Click to expand...

And how do you know which one's which? If you want people to pay for seeing the doctor, it will be something that affects everybody. So those who can't afford it won't go, whether they just have a runny nose, bad teeth or cancer. Those with the runny nose will survive, those with cancer, or other life-threatening illnesses - not so much.

And how do you know the sore throat is just that, or if you're dealing with somebody who's got a tonsil infection which, in extreme cases and if left untreated, can be fatal? How do you distinguish between just some tummy-ache and the onset of apendicitis?

No, sorry, while I agree that people who are clogging up doctor's offices for nothing are a nuisance, I'd rather deal with them than have even one person die because they couldn't afford medical care.

And the strain on the NHS is self made. Attention seekers are the smallest problem that they have, and it's a lame excuse to blame them for the mis-management of the NHS and the thousands of horrible and sometimes simply ridiculous decisions that have been made by those in charge.
 
No, sorry, while I agree that people who are clogging up doctor's offices for nothing are a nuisance, I'd rather deal with them than have even one person die because they couldn't afford medical care.
Click to expand...
No, I agree with you completely. I didn't mean to make it seem like that is my opinion. I go to the doctors a lot simply because I'd rather be safe than sorry. Just don't think he meant it as literally as he said it. Or maybe he did. I don't know!
Much prefer our free system. I've never waited longer than a day for an appointment. Have spoken to doctors that say they spend most of their days looking at people with colds who think they are dying though! My friend had a sore throat and went to the doctors after months of saying "It's not a big deal" and he had a tumor in his neck!
 
Same here. Dentist's appointments can be tricky, but I never had to wait longer than two days for a doctor's appointment. Even managed to get same-day appointments more often than not.

And last time my whole family had come down with a really bad cold, I went to the pharmacy to get cough medicine and whatnot, and they actually arranged to get a prescription for it from my doc without actually having to see my doc. So instead of paying about £ 30 for all the stuff, it was just the prescription fee. So that's a good thing as well.

And things like what happened to your friend are exactly what I mean - if I had a sore throat for a long time, I would probably go to the doctor to get it checked out in the end, just to be on the safe side. If I knew I'd have to pay for that doctor's visit, I might just try to shrug it off and keep eating Strepsils, because money is tight. So....yeah.

Hope your friend turned out okay!!
 
San said:
So those who can't afford healthcare and are seriously ill just die?

Please tell me you are joking.
Click to expand...

No. I think it's quite reasonable the someone pay a fee to see a Doctor. Politically the under 20's and over 65's would be exempt but I see no reason why someone of working age should pay 20-40 quid to see a doctor. Perhaps their could be a slight discount for the unemployed

I've seen enough of people with hypochondria trot off to see the doctor at the drop of a hat, often so they'd have a note to get off work.

If less poeple are seeing their GP then it makes sense that those who are genuinely ill will benefit from seeing their Dr more swiftly. The Dr's surgery will recieve a slight increase in income and perhaps be able to hire more staff.

Realistically the NHS cannot continue in it's current state and it does need a shake-up. Charging people for a visit to the Doctors seems a sensible first step.

I think it's a little hysterical to compare such a viewpoint to "those who can't afford healthcare and are seriously ill just die?"
 
Thank you again for all your comments everyone, it is enlightening for me to be able to see the viewpoints of those who have been covered by universal health care!
 
Iain1974 said:
No. I think it's quite reasonable the someone pay a fee to see a Doctor. Politically the under 20's and over 65's would be exempt but I see no reason why someone of working age should pay 20-40 quid to see a doctor. Perhaps their could be a slight discount for the unemployed
I've seen enough of people with hypochondria trot off to see the doctor at the drop of a hat, often so they'd have a note to get off work.
If less poeple are seeing their GP then it makes sense that those who are genuinely ill will benefit from seeing their Dr more swiftly. The Dr's surgery will recieve a slight increase in income and perhaps be able to hire more staff.
Realistically the NHS cannot continue in it's current state and it does need a shake-up. Charging people for a visit to the Doctors seems a sensible first step.
I think it's a little hysterical to compare such a viewpoint to "those who can't afford healthcare and are seriously ill just die?"
Click to expand...

A sensible first step? Uhm, alright, if you say so. I wonder how many of the 50 million Americans without healthcare cover are seriously ill and will die without ever seeing a doctor - and most likely without making it into the statistics either?!

And no, it is not hysterical whatsoever. Have you looked around the UK and paid attention to how many people have horribly bad teeth? That's because a lot of them can't afford the dentist.

And paying 40 quid to see a doctor....let's see. I have a husband with a respiratory problem who has to see the doctor about twice a month. 80 quid. I have a back problem, serious trouble with my ankle due to botched surgery, and a shoulder injury, which sends me to the docs at least once a week. That's 160 quid right there. And then you can add dentist care for me and my husband, which are 70 quid each per month - 140. Makes £ 380, which is about $ 630 (I think).

I have a disabled stepson, so I'm not working. My husband is on a low income right now, and brings about £ 1000 after taxes home. Our rent is 400, council tax is 120. Household costs for 3 people in a month about 300. That includes food, laundry costs, clothing etc. Where are we? Ah - £820. Add to that the phonebill, gas and electric, and there is nothing left.

Fortunately the huge costs caused by the behaviour of my stepson are covered by a disability living allowance, but just barely.

If I had to pay for doctor's appointments as well as dentist's, we'd all be running around with rotten teeth, and my husband would most likely be dead by now.

Sounds charming.

If you want special treatment, and get a doctor's appointment quicker (even though, as said, there aren't huge waiting times to start with), that's what places like BuPa and whatnot are for. Pay extra, and you get 'special' treatment.

Yes, the NHS needs a shakeup. But there have been enough cuts that affected the patients already. How about cutting the wages for the management down? That's where the mistakes have been made after all.

Introducing a charge for doctor's visits will not change anything, and it won't help to solve the problems of the NHS. It will just make less people see doctors, that's all.
 
Last edited:
I view healthcare as a basic human right. Which is why I like the NHS. I'm from Australia, where healthcare is subsidised (dental isn't, optical is mostly private too) but you still generally have to pay to see a doctor ($20 and up to see most GPs, usually significantly more- even hundreds of dollars- to see a specialist- not covered under health insurance) and medication/ medical procedures, while subsidised, is on a sliding scale (and medication is almost always more expensive than in the UK- typical from what I saw was about $30/ month. Medical procedures were half subsidised by Medicare but could still run into hundreds of dollars). I personally never had a problem when I was in Australia because my parents just paid for everything, but I'm aware I'm one of the lucky ones- what if I couldn't have afforded that $700 MRI scan (get $350 back, but you have to lay the money out first) and I had had that suspected brain tumour (my scan was completely clean, but I only knew that because Dad coughed up the cash)? Does my right to live and receive early treatment for something potentially life threatening seriously depend on the money I (or my family) have to spend on it? And sometimes my medication bill ran into over $200/ month (subsidised!). What would you like me to cut- the medication that keeps my metabolism going, the stuff that keeps me sane, the stuff that could prevent me getting cancer in the long term, etc? (In the UK I actually don't pay for my medication as I have a medical condition- hypothyroidism- that would kill me if I couldn't take my medication, so they give me all my drugs. If anything that errs on the generous side, but I also doubt that medical exemptions from drug charges is where they're losing a tonne of money)

While I can see the benefit in some charges (I'd love to see a "did not show up to an appointment without sufficient notice/ reasonable excuse" charge- say 5 quid for the GP and 10 quid for a specialist, as I reckon that'd cut down waiting times and save money because people would show up or cancel so someone else could have the appointment, and that amount of money isn't going to put very many people into serious financial straits), I think that making healthcare about your ability to pay is utterly inhumane.
 
amy1985 said:
While I can see the benefit in some charges (I'd love to see a "did not show up to an appointment without sufficient notice/ reasonable excuse" charge- say 5 quid for the GP and 10 quid for a specialist, as I reckon that'd cut down waiting times and save money because people would show up or cancel so someone else could have the appointment, and that amount of money isn't going to put very many people into serious financial straits), I think that making healthcare about your ability to pay is utterly inhumane.
Click to expand...

Oh, now that's a good idea and one I would totally agree with - if you don't show up and don't let them know, you have to pay a fine before getting your next appointment. It's something that is easily avoidable, so it won't put strain on those who actually need the appointments and keep them. I like that.
 
amy1985 said:
While I can see the benefit in some charges (I'd love to see a "did not show up to an appointment without sufficient notice/ reasonable excuse" charge- say 5 quid for the GP and 10 quid for a specialist, as I reckon that'd cut down waiting times and save money because people would show up or cancel so someone else could have the appointment, and that amount of money isn't going to put very many people into serious financial straits), I think that making healthcare about your ability to pay is utterly inhumane.
Click to expand...

If there was only a nominal fee of 5 or 10 quid I doubt it'd be worth the trouble of implementing. Most people that will miss an appointment aren't likely to change their behavior on the basis of being fined a fiver.

And for 5 pounds how much effort would go into collecting that money if it was not paid? More than 5 pounds worht of chasing and it's counter productive.

To have a system of charging it needs to be an amount that's worthwhile and I don't know what that number would be I'd guess at somewhere over 20.

I'm in favour of charging for an appointment and somone should pay whether they showed up or not. Perhaps £40 for someone working and a discounted rate a bit lower for someone out of work £25 and free for those in full time education or 65+.
 
Actually, you'd be surprised (at least among the people I know) at how vehemently people are opposed to the idea of paying for appointments in the NHS. And from my perspective- say a phone call costs a pound to cancel. I've saved 4-9.

And the reason I gave those numbers is that they aren't going to put a lot of people into financial hardship. The numbers you're talking would, and you'd see people skipping appointments and damaging their health (it'd certainly be a massive blow to my budget even on the smallest of those figures). Besides, I think it's a country's moral obligation to provide healthcare for its citizens (coming out of the tax base) and I like the way the NHS does that.
 
You're clearly more conscientious than most(!) But I'd guess that your behaviour wouldn't change whether there is no fee, £5 or £50.

I think that the people's who's behaviour needs changing will take a bit more persuasion than £5 unless the system allowed for increasing amounts per appointment missed say £5, £10, £25, £40 etc.

Even then, a fine is meaningless if it's not collected which I suspect would happen a lot more with a nominal amount. Especially if someone could just get another appointment at another time.

I doubt there would be enought political will to allow Dr's to deny appointments to those who miss visits, as San suggested, and don't pay a fine (be it £5 or whatever) - then you've got screaming headlines in the Red Tops - 'Denied NHS treatment and died 2 days later' - most politicians wouldn't want the risk.
 
Well, I'd be quite happy to raise the amount charged for missed appointments. Make it 50, I don't care.

And yes, there would probably be headlines like that. But if the NHS started charging for doctor's appointments, the headlines would change to 'Poor people denied NHS treatment, died 2 days later' - which is no better. And it would be something that happens over and over again, while cases like somebody who can't get a second appointment because they don't want to pay the fine would be isolated events.

The main problem I see is that it would be those who are short on money who'd be hit the hardest again. The hypochondriacs that have enough money would still be clogging up doctor's offices, because they don't care about the money. The elderly, even those who have nothing wrong with them, would still see the doc twice a week (simply because they are bored), because they don't have to pay. But the hardworking person on low pay ruins their health and doesn't go, because they can't afford it. So good health would be exclusive to those who can afford it. I thought the civilised world grew out of that way of thinking a couple of hundred years ago.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top