Title of thread is the question. Are your views on healthcare political or morally based?
Considering how contagious the Coronavirus is, what are your thoughts on healthcare for all. It's scary to think that some random guy I could be walking past may not visit a Dr. Of hospital due to the cost.
| +46 | Interviews Are So Fake | 28 | 9h | |
| +33 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 21 | 13h | |
| +29 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 1d | |
| +26 | Non-Competes Banned | 26 | 3h | |
| How do I become Sigma | 15 | 5h | ||
| +19 | Moelis has the cutest Analysts? | 4 | 1d | |
| +19 | ADHD ! | 4 | 10h | |
| +18 | Best NYC neighborhood for single 30M | 12 | 3d | |
| +16 | Underage intern, drinking? | 7 | 1d | |
| +13 | Secretive vs Universal Prestige? | 7 | 1d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
This debate will split among predictable ideological lines, but I believe in a baseline of universal healthcare known as the "public option" more akin to the German system than the English NHS. People should be able to keep their private health insurance if they like it, or pay extra for "high end healthcare" if they can afford it or prioritize it in their life.
That said, in a first world country, people should not be dying because they can't afford insurance or going bankrupt simply because they got cancer. One of my coworkers got slapped with an absurd bill after his lung collapsed. He went to an in-plan hospital and recovered, only to find out later that while the hospital was in-plan, the specific doctor that treated him wasn't. What kind of bullshit is that? People travel to Mexico or Canada to buy insulin because it's cheaper to buy it there than it is in America. That is a national embarrassment.
Coronovirus tests should be free because it benefits society as a whole, including rich people, for a pandemic to be controlled. Likewise, having a baseline of free medical care benefits society as a whole, including rich people.
This ^^^
What's wrong with just keeping medicaid, if you are poor you should receive healthcare treatment, it's only right- but you need to prove you cannot afford it and that is why the taxpayer will help out, otherwise they should just buy insurance. Food is essential too, and taxpayers only support those that prove they cannot afford it on their own which I think is morally correct.
Adults with an annual income ranging from $13,663 to$57,022 (for a family of eight)** may be eligible for Medicaid coverage.
Lmao, you have to be beyond poor to qualify for medicaid.
This will happen soon enough. Republicans can only fight the will of the people for so long. Perfectly put, btw.
Also, I agree that the vaccine should be free (much like the polio vaccine). The cost to treat those who are sick will be multiples higher than giving the vaccine out for free
Yep
I support universal health care on moral grounds, There is not much I can say about it.
Keep religion out of public policy debates.
Your are being sarcastic, right?
Economics
Do people really like their insurance? I think people like their doctors. Medicare for all would allow people to go to whoever they want and not be constrained to their insurers network.
I like not paying for other people's insurance thank you
So when people who have no money go to the ER, who do you think is paying for that?
You're an intern. Are you even paid?
Do you like sending $400 Million to Ukraine?
I think I would rather have the money help my neighbor or someone I may come in contact with at the grocery store.
Buddy, that's literally what any insurance is.
Funny thing about insurance is, it's already paying for someone else's medical bills. I think an inbetween system of we will provide social benefits only when a need is proven is more complicated than a system of provide social benefits with equity or provide none at all. We've been trying to mix the two contrasting ideologies and it has not been working for decades.
That is so correct, either everyone pays insurance except those who cannot afford it and these people will likely not be able to pay treatments either, thus people paying for insurance will pay for the regardless in the end through higher premiums. In some cases people without insurance will not be able to afford healthcare.
Or you have a government run scheme funded by taxes (everyone pays again except those who cannot as above), but in this case healthcare will be provided to anyone so long it is reasonable. We can also expect that given that the government doesn’t need the 3-5% profit margin private insurers have, as a whole the society would be better off by 3-5%.
Both basically have the same cost for a good majority of the people, but in one case the society is better off and everyone has healthcare. Which one would you pick?
Most people who have insurance today certainly won’t be better off. Government run health care with the elimination of private insurance means that everyone gets the same shit quality level of health care. See NHS.
I generally agree with conservative views on most political issues. I'll mention now that I am not American, so no, I don't support Trump. Despite being more on the right than left, there are several issues that I believe the liberals have right, one of the most important IMO being healthcare.
My country has universal healthcare, and although it raises taxes and leads to slightly longer wait times when going to the doctor, I fully support it. Plain and simple, I can't fathom the idea of a family losing a loved one to a disease or situation that was easily preventable because they could not afford it. I'd happily pay the extra taxes each year if it meant that all of my neighbours (figuratively, obviously) got to live healthier and happier lives.
write a donation to the united states every year then man, im sure theyll be happy to collect it from you, you can write in the purpose section "paying for other people's healthcare" hope it makes you happy at night man
Clearly you don't agree, and thats cool.
I genuinely would love to know how my post upset you this much though. I was just sharing my opinion.
Same board as you, just check my post above on why universal healthcare makes sense
I lean conservative too and I feel like one could easily make a conservative argument for universal multi-payer healthcare, similar to countries like Switzerland, Germany, Japan, and Singapore, on the basis of freedom and choice. Universal coverage would get rid of the mess with employer insurance and people would be more free to change jobs or start their own businesses, stimulating the economy (imo it would be better if employers bargained directly with providers but it doesn't seem anyone's proposing that). I advocate multi-payer because forcing patients to contribute a small percentage of the cost would ensure competition by price and quality of care, prevent massive increases in demand (considering how unhealthy Americans are, single-payer would cause excessive healthcare use), and prevent costs from rising out of control without resorting to price controls on drugs and treatment. Any payment issues with people who have medical debt (which is the worst-case scenario) would become rare and the government can bail out individuals on the verge of bankruptcy. There wouldn't be the mess with in-network providers and similar contracts with current private insurers, so patients have more options with providers, resulting in more competition.
I also echo what Milton Friedchickenman said about regulations and combatting the practice of "defensive medicine". The supply of doctors, hospitals, and drugs are unnecessarily suppressed because of regulations that have very little to do with safety, sanitation, or expertise. If supply is expanded, you're much less likely to experience shortages or healthcare bubbles even with universal coverage.
Also republicans are wrong in saying that this is "socialized medicine". None of the current m4a proposals, for example, are socialized medicine where the government operates hospitals and employs the medical staff (like the VA which has been a disaster). Universal multi-payer system isn't socialist and I don't believe in the government's ability to effectively fund, manage, and update its standards, equipment, and practices to offer optimal health care.
None of this will work if the current American lifestyle continues to crush our healthcare system to death. I can't think of a single developed country that has as much of an unhealthy population as us. 70% of Americans are overweight and 1 in 3 Americans are obese. I don't know what policy could solve this (more food regulations? tax fat people? lol) but it has to change for this to be sustainable. Side note: healthy populations is one of the many differentiating factors that have allowed fully government-run single-payer healthcare systems to work in certain countries but not in others and likely wouldn't in the U.S. For example, Norway is a country of 5 million people, have cleaner air, have higher rate of healthy people, have crazy oil reserves that result in the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world, have their military security guaranteed by the U.S., have strict policies against immigration and naturalization, have one of the fairest and most efficient tax regimes in the world where middle class and above are okay with paying 50-60% taxes (more billionaires per capita in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland than the U.S.; more people with net worth >$30 million per capita in Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, and Denmark than the U.S.; America is 13th on that list), and have applied market principles extremely well. Such mechanisms should be applied to the U.S. as well before layering universal coverage on top of our system.
If anyone's interested, this is a separate idea that a friend of mine who has worked in medical business administration for almost 2 decades came up with and could be easier to implement with the current system:
*To replace Obamacare, we should get rid of all medical insurance companies. They have abused their right to do business with us and are often lying when they say they have suffered losses. Let folks pay reasonable and realistic monthly premiums to the state where they live - where they will receive medical care - and let the state be the “third party administrator” (TPA). This will do away with deductibles, co-pays, pre-existing conditions, pre-authorizations, secondary insurance premiums, and open season. If your employer wishes to pay this premium for you as a benefit, it’s OK but it’s not mandatory (The only reason health insurance was ever offered through employers was for the “group” discount - Hillarycare eliminated that). With this will have to come a complete overhaul of the medical care industry - which is well overdue - and the actual costs for medical care and medical supplies evaluated and reassigned. This will eliminate the tight relationship between insurance companies, their lobbyists, and the federal government which is designed to drive up the cost of medical care in America.
**People don’t know that if you have an 80/20 policy with any insurance company, you as the patient will ALWAYS pay more than the insurance company. Because of the contracts the hospitals HAVE to agree to in order to receive patients (in-network providers, preferred providers, etc., and the “no benefits” penalties to patients if they go to a hospital that is not on their insurance company’s provider list), insurance companies only pay 10% to 15% of the amount THEY approve of your in-patient hospital bill; you pay 20%. The difference between what is billed and what the insurance company will approve for payment is “written-off” by the hospital. They send “adjustments” figures to the federal government and receive 25% rebate. This is what drives up the cost of medical care; the more they are forced to write-off, the higher their rebate figure must be to stay within budget. THAT’S why there’s a $5.00 aspirin on your bill and all the other outrageous charges - because the hospital is only going to realize a fraction of those charges in actual payments. It’s like going around the block to get to the corner thanks to the collaboration of medical insurance companies and the federal government messing with everything to do with Health Care.
***As for Welfare/Medicaid, this is where we should implement the “three strikes you’re out” - if you’re getting ready to have your third (or more) Medicaid baby, your welfare assistance ceases to exist as it was (you’re not cut off - but you are now limited) and you are investigated by social workers and family services as to the health and well-being of the two (or more) children you already have. This will put an end to children being used as “commodities’ so the parent(s) can remain on welfare and receive more and more benefits per child, and children being born into and suffering the pains of poverty and neglect. In this day and age - where birth control is widely available - no child should be born into poverty.
I also feel like 80% of Americans are generally not poor, until they need to live life a little like their not poor. Then the fucked up pricing mechanism in this country makes them poor really quick, really fast. You just get the feeling there is some lopsided power dynamic at play.
I think healthcare should be free. Having run companies in Canada and the US...the one huge fucking PITA in the US is dealing with employee health related issues. I'd rather pay a slight premium in tax to avoid it.
Also...it's actually cheaper to offer universal healthcare > private?
On a related note, hold co taxes (canadian co) are lower than my American business partner's.
I agree with m_1. It's very expensive to hire workers in the US due to having to offer them healthcare. Depending on the employee, healthcare can be more expensive than all other benefits combined (including salary). That definitely depresses hiring and it definitely depresses wages. Many employers would gladly pay into a central pool at a federal level over having to deal with the insurance companies. Most people with company-sponsored insurance have no idea how much the company pays for their care. They only know how much they pay in premiums and deductibles, but the vast majority of costs are covered by their employers--they never see those bills.
I used to hate the idea of socialized medicine because I thought it would lead to shitty care, rationing of care, long wait times, and a host of other problems. But after witnessing what the US health system has become, I think it's pretty clear we have a problem. I think we all know this intuitively when we consider that no other country on the planet adopted our system of care. It's the most expensive care system per capita in the world and we simply don't get the best care. At the very least, we are massively overpaying for the quality of care we receive here.
If the problems in the system were addressed 30-40 years ago when they first cropped up, we wouldn't be in this situation. We could have taken relatively small, directed steps to fix incremental problems. We could have forced the insurance companies to remain not-for-profit organizations as they were all originally created to be. We could have stopped the AMA from creating a quota system for doctors which artificially suppresses the supply of MDs and inflates their wages. We could have pushed back against the pharmaceutical companies from serializing their patents on decades-old technologies and drugs. We could have told the pharma execs to go fuck themselves when they charged us dozens or hundreds of times more for the same drugs you can get everywhere else in existence for a fraction of the price. But every time one of those challenges presented itself, we whiffed. We didn't do anything, and at this point, the system is too much of an amorphous bureaucratic nightmare to fix through legislation. It's like the student loan market--it's a fucking mess.
Given the state of things, I'd say a public option makes sense. At the very least, it should help drive down costs through collective bargaining. But that's only part of the solution. We need to drive down pharmaceutical costs, drive down doctor's wages, decrease the number of medical billing and insurance professionals, and generally eat away at the administrative costs in the system. These all seem pretty obvious to me. Just a couple decades ago, there was no such thing as a medical billing specialist. Now, you can get an associates degree in the subject because it's so convoluted. In 1980, being a doctor wasn't a guaranteed path into the 1%. I'm not sure why it is today. As I said, no other country adopted our system and it's not because our system is so great that no one can copy our brilliance. It's because it isn't very good.
I guess my issue is why is it every time something with regards to expanding healthcare comes up, people always ask well how are we going to pay for it? But when we spend trillions of dollars on wars or being the world police....no one bats an eye? So while the other poster doesn't want to pay for others healthcare, I don't want to pay for dumb wars
This. I wish we could choose the recipients of some of our taxes so I could divert my cash away from drone bombing, and send it to healthcare initiatives (or rebuilding our roads, or improving our water infrastructure, or getting more low-income housing, or halfway decent public transportation in-and-between cities, or shifting to cleaner energy, or improving public education...)
This coronavirus thing is dress rehearsal for when an Ebola severity pathogen hits here
So far we got an F
What about the government simply doing its job? For example, the DOJ scrutinizing M&A in the hospital/healthcare management and pharmaceuticals space? Looking into monopolies or duopolies in certain regions, states, counties, etc?
How about Americans taking responsibility for themselves (I know people HATE this)? We have very high obesity rates and people who refuse to exercise even a little yet gorge on food and drink sodas in cups the size of a newborn!
Sure the healthcare system is convoluted but it became this way due to government action (trying to do too much and involving themselves in every aspect) and also inaction (some comments in the beginning of this post).
These are always weird discussions. I wish we could figure out the question first, and then we might be able to work toward an answer.
Are we asking: "should every US citizen have a right to emergent health care services regardless of ability to pay?" We can argue the role of government in society (either ideally or as currently legislated), but the reality is, we have this currently. Nobody gets turned away at the ER. Replace "US citizen" with "person on US soil" to up the degree of complexity of this particular point.
Are we asking: "should out-of-pocket cost borne by patients be zero for all healthcare products and services?" Note how I avoided the term "free" - anyone in this discussion needs to back away from the idea that healthcare products and services, anywhere in the world, are free. Nothing is free. Things have to get produced and transported and distributed, buildings have to be built and maintained, people have to be trained and paid. The question is if they're paid directly (cash pay, like most of the economy) or through a risk-sharing mechanism where people can choose to opt in (traditional insurance) or where people are opted in automatically (government subsidy) or both.
The emotional debate around this point usually coalesces around heartbreaking situations. Kids with cancer, immigrant single moms with TB, rare disorders with painful outcomes, etc. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone on the political spectrum that finds joy in watching people suffer and die (yes, even Republicans - and if you don't believe this is true, then you're a victim of the intentional polarization effected by today's mass media).
The truth is that if our national healthcare budget was directed toward lessening suffering of people in emergent situations, although we could debate endlessly about what constitutes "emergent situations," we could pay for all of it - several times over. Those dollars represent a minor fraction of the US's healthcare spending budget.
But what about the rest of situations? Should we collectively pay (because that's what's happening when the government pays for healthcare) for some fat dude's statins for the next 30 years? Should we pay for that guy to get an elective surgery to have his knee replaced once he's demolished his cartilage from being 150 pounds overweight? Should we pay for him to have that knee replacement revised when he ignores the physical therapy guidelines that were also paid for? Should that guy have to bear any of his own costs, or have to make decisions about his care because they affect him and his own wallet?
Should everyone receive the same standard of care? We don't do this in law - our country has established that every person, regardless of ability to pay, has the right to representation in a court of law when accused of a crime. I think this is an excellent decision, even though it costs the government money, because it's the right thing to do. But does everyone get Kirkland & Ellis? Hell no, they get a public defender, who may or may not have graduated from a tier 3 law school, and maybe they took this job because they believe in public service, or maybe it's the best job they could get (those public defender gigs sure don't pay like biglaw).
So should a homeless alcoholic with catastrophic cirrhosis get a new liver at a top-tier OR in a large metropolitan area? Should they get palliative care at an inner-city clinic? Should they see a government-appointed primary care doctor for people who can't afford anything different? Somewhere in between? How do we decide?
Simply waving the flag of "healthcare is a human right!" is an incredibly shallow and uninformed position. In a free society, nobody can claim a right to another person's time or expertise. Healthcare is a group of (admittedly, very important) products and services, but they're still created by and delivered by people investing their time, capital, and capabilities. I don't have a right to a doctor or hospital any more than I have a right to a lawyer's time, or a grocery store's products, or a home builder's products, or someone's land. We can decide as a society that it is good when we can collectively support (i.e. pay for) these products and services on behalf of those in need - and then we can argue about what "in need" means, and the mechanism for payment.
One last scenario: are we asking "should governments subsidize research and development of treatments for diseases that present a major public threat?" Even your most hardline libertarians would argue that this is one of the kinds of things that government is good for. And, to the surprise of many, we do this. We can argue whether or not the coronavirus response has been good enough, but it's a matter of degree, not kind.
Really good post, speaks to the key point that all of these issues are significantly more complex than the binary options portrayed to Americans by the media.
I think there is both a political and moral basis for a baseline of healthcare being provided to all. Yes some services could require a top-up with a privatish insurer but you need a single-payer base if you want to hope to make things affordable.
Sorry, what is this "moral basis"? I understand the political drivers - people would rather have it and you want to win people's votes.
I am just tired of progressives talking out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to matters of morality.
Canada is doing it right
The US GOVERNMENT pays far more per person for healthcare than any other country in the world yet it only provides that healthcare to a minority of the population (Medicare/Medicaid). That tells you all you need to know about the quality of the current system.
To start with one major issue that is not frequently discussed, there is both a major shortage of doctors and they make 2-3x more than any other developed country. That's because there are far too few medical schools in the country and the cost of attending them is through the roof. Those in medical school then gravitate towards more lucrative specialties so they can pay back their debts which leads to even worse shortages in areas like primary care. Since there are so few doctors, nurse practitioners and physicians assistants are constantly holding responsibilities that they are not remotely qualified for.
I'm glad someone else brought this up. The US system artificially depresses the number of medical school entrances around the country. We compound the problem with some obtuse matching system for graduating doctors that builds in an inherent shortage. That might be good for doctors since it results in them getting higher wages, but it's creating a supply shortage of MDs.
It's one of the many reasons the US medical system has very little 'surge capacity' for, say, a massive infectious disease outbreak. We don't let the market determine how many doctors we need or what to pay them. Wouldn't it be nice if we had 100,000 extra doctors floating around the country at the moment? I wonder what they could be doing right now?
Everything related to medical care is double the cost of what it should be in the US. There are a lot of explanations of why that is, but from what I can tell from having worked in the healthcare services industry, the root cause is having a group of payers (insurance companies) who really do not have any incentive to try to negotiate down prices. The payers pass along costs to the employers (who really end up paying for most of the medical costs in the US), and the insurance companies actually make more money if the employers spend more on healthcare.
That leaves providers, hospitals, pharma, and devices companies all trying to negotiate very high prices with limited pushback from the insurers. The patient obviously doesn’t care outside of a small copay which is a fraction of the total cost. Employers are stuck with a bill that they can’t do much about given the lack of transparency around prices and inability to create their own networks.
A single payer system would cut out insurance companies and employers from the system and takes over all payments of healthcare. In that system, the government can set standard rates and would have way more negotiating leverage against providers, hospitals, pharma, and devices companies. Now, it’s questionable how incentivized the government would be to lower rates is questionable, but at least they wouldn’t be profiting from increased rates like insurance companies (who do all the price negotiations) are today.
Putting aside any moral or emotional elements of the debate, I mainly want a single payer system to lower healthcare costs. It’s ridiculous what’s happening right now, and it’s only going to get worse until the US is at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world for employers.
Also, I find it strange when people say they don’t want to pay for other people’s healthcare for two reasons: 1) they don’t even pay for their own healthcare (their employer does), and at the same time 2) they already do pay for other people’s healthcare - 1.5% of our paychecks go to medicare already. If we move to a single payer system, it’ll be primarily funded by taxing employers what they would have paid anyway for the sky high healthcare costs of their employees today
.
Cool, thanks for pointing out the 6.2% vs. 1.45% - my mistake and appreciate you pointing that out.
Sure, people are "paying" indirectly via lower potential wages, but that only strengthens the argument that a single payer system that lowers healthcare costs overall will save money for the average worker in the form of increased wages that offset any additional taxes to the employee - rather than forcing them to "pay more require them to pay more. So while I don't appreciate your self-righteous attitude (you really think taking a couple of classes makes you an expert?), you've only made my argument stronger.
As for your first point on quality - yes, US has the best quality healthcare. Accessibility is an issue though (how many patients out of the hundreds of millions do you think Mayo Clinic can see every year?). The quality is also a result of the US just having the best universities with the biggest endowments for medical research. Sure, perhaps quality will dip slightly if we cut the cost of healthcare in half, but I'd take that trade off any day
.
Universal healthcare will only work IF we do something about our immigration problem. We need to seriously crack down on illegal immigration.
Being a Brit that moved to America I can tell you it’s no great shakes. I love the system here. it’s not perfect but it’s getting better. my aunt died on a chemotherapy waiting list. so I’d rather not hear about how a government healthcare plan will be “perfect”.
Geesh, we've had this debate time and again on WSO. There is nothing left to be said on the topic.
I'm just genuinely blown away by the people advocating for single-payer and/or gov't-run healthcare. In particular, I'm blown away by those who advocate for a complete gov't takeover of the healthcare system. Imagine the complete morons who populate America's administrative state attempting to administer healthcare to 330 million people spanning a continent + numerous outlying territories. It's a complete joke. The same people saying that the Trump administration is composed of a bunch of incompetent clowns will turn around and say that oh by the way, these same people should be allowed to run America's healthcare system. But that's ok, they don't really mean Trump; they mean their party should be running the system. So long as you always elect them the system will run smoothly; elect the other guys every other election and the system will collapse. It's a f*cking joke.
Then you've got a bunch of atheists and/or people who have utter contempt for religion, religious people, or the concept of making morality-based laws making philisophically illiterate moral arguments that it is moral for one man to labor on behalf of another, regardless of consent. The reality is, you don't have a moral right to healthcare--it's a product and service. Nobody has any right to a product or service that he or she doesn't pay for. It's that simple. If we want to argue about what is good for society, then fine, but the idea that a doctor should have to work for below cost (which is what Medicare essentially is today) because it is "moral" is absurd and contemptible.
Finally, this thread continues to perpetuate the lie that America has a broken healthcare system. In fact, the U.S. has good health outcomes, high satisfcation rates, and extremely few people who involuntarily have no access to health insurance (
My views on public healthcare are selfishly based. I like a healthcare safety net for my family.
Even though I earn a nice finance salary and my employer provides private health insurance I am aware that my job is at-will and that my insurance does not cover my elderly mom or my kid. I like knowing there’s a backstop (we live in Hong Kong).
This week I was in London and met up with a buddy in financial sponsors coverage at a BB. He told me that he loves U.K. public healthcare even though he has private insurance because one day he will retire and he needs to be based somewhere where his health and well-being are covered. A guy getting Uber rich serving KKR and Carlyle still wants to know when shit hits the fan the government will make sure his ass is covered, worst comes to worst.
Somehow there has been a myth foisted on America that public healthcare is awful and expensive. It is neither. Public healthcare as I experienced it in HK and U.K. are amazing in terms of accessibility and quality. My Canadian friends universally loved their healthcare as well. And public healthcare is much more economically sensible than what the USA has (insurance based healthcare) because costs are diffused across Society and the fat is trimmed out (no insurance companies and private healthcare groups getting rich).
So this is not me being ideological or political. I am being 100% selfish, self serving and self interested. I want future retired self, my current infant son, my stay at home wife and my elderly mom covered.
As a German with mandatory membership in a public insurance scheme, this thread is beyond laughable. Do I get the Head Physician when I have my appendix removed? Do I get a single room with flatscreen TV and 5-star meals? No and no. But, when staying overnight in a hospital, you pay 20€, as a working adult. As a low-income adult or a child, you pay fuck all. When I call a doctor because my mother coughs her lungs out, I pay fuck all. When I get any (common) substance prescribed, I pay between 10€ and fuck all. I have to take an ambulance because I broke my leg? That´s fuck all for you. You get my point. Is it a perfect system? Hell no. But I believe, paying under 5% of my monthly pre-tax income for a system where no one, really no one, has to go into debt for medical treatment is a pretty good fucking system. /rant over
100%. Love our public healthcare system in Hong Kong similarly. No frills, but full coverage and peace of mind. Priceless.
Feel similarly having moved back to Canada from the US. I had good insurance and the benefit of being a healthy 20-something. I guess it's nice to be able to book an appointment with a specialist directly, but that's after navigating the world of deductibles, HSA's, and networks and assuming I keep my job/insurance, don't have some major illness, don't unknowingly get seen by an out-of-network doctor etc. That's just on a personal level too - it's clear the system is broken when people die from lack of insulin or resort to GoFundMe for cancer treatment.
Moved back, got my health card, and I felt relief in a way that I hadn't appreciated before. It wasn't that I personally had any complaints about my insurance in the US, and it's not that the Canadian system is perfect by any means (drug costs, wait times) but overall, I know that if I'm sick I'll be taken care of free, regardless of my insurance status, age, employment status, etc. That's a lot of peace of mind, and just...good for society.
waste of time to disucss
Let me put my 5 cents here as a foreigner. The existence of private healthcare plans drives up prices to unimaginable amounts. If you ever been to an ER you know that the bill can be around $5K for a checkup, couple of blood tests and a drug prescription. It is an insane amount of money for anything. Don't tell me "oh this is how it costs", no tf it does not. Even if you ask an itemized bill, you will see that they charge you $40 for a bandaid (it is real, I swear). That is why when people get medical help like an ER visit or, God fobid, a surgery, they get hit with enormous bills and go into bankruptcy. There are so many countries in the world, developed and developing, that have the same or similar level of quality of care and YET it does not cost NEARLY this much. Private insurance companies are not willing to negotiate the prices down and the providers take advantage of that on the expense of sick people. Bottomline, healthcare in America right now is a scam, they literally rob you, when all you are trying to do is survive. Mind you, this is the best country on the planet! Anyone from a normal (I consider Sweden be normal, for example) simply cannot understand WHY the medical services (and drugs by the way) in the US are so expensive, when they are abvailable literally everywhere for 1/100th of the price. Just wanted to let y'all know that this system is trash and is not worth even a half of what it costs right now and a single payer system will standardize prices to end this scam that y'all call healthcare.
Voluptas perferendis est sint esse porro veritatis sint. Ut nihil fugiat corrupti earum. Qui sit sed in blanditiis quia.
Quisquam dolorem quis quis. Suscipit dolorum et fugit veniam itaque quo eaque. Est sit autem sunt non debitis est eos. Consequuntur eos occaecati explicabo atque mollitia.
Et et possimus qui voluptatem et officiis velit laboriosam. Facere nemo et et commodi rerum culpa. Veritatis deserunt perferendis voluptas molestiae maiores ipsa facilis explicabo.
Qui suscipit illum laboriosam. Ratione impedit consequatur qui saepe.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Nulla vel deserunt molestias voluptatem non dolore atque. Ratione quia rerum qui. Voluptas explicabo placeat vitae commodi laborum. Et reiciendis rerum est. Est est aut molestias expedita est doloribus. Expedita qui eaque sed mollitia.
Officia sint quod dignissimos asperiores quibusdam. Est quo commodi qui ipsam. In explicabo molestiae ipsum quaerat. Nesciunt recusandae corrupti nam corrupti. Et ut blanditiis voluptas qui. Excepturi est officia asperiores natus odit.
Veniam eligendi voluptates consectetur sed. Nisi corporis quod non sit est. Quaerat mollitia accusamus officia repudiandae aliquid commodi ut.
Et aliquam cum dolores unde qui. Veniam ea ratione ut facilis. Sunt nostrum consequatur tenetur optio expedita.
Dolorem magni similique rerum eveniet nihil. Eaque explicabo eveniet beatae at id velit debitis porro. Deserunt reiciendis laboriosam rem delectus debitis occaecati perspiciatis sit. In nam omnis adipisci tenetur et. Perferendis ea et nobis architecto voluptate ut.