Universal vs. Private Healthcare

[mjl2010]

But I would like to comment on something you said about health care. I find it interesting that you were faced with an emergency situation where you needed medical attention and could not find it. It is interesting because it should give you a first hand understanding of how many people in this country feel. However, I wonder if the ones who cannot afford to purchase the medical care that they need are not even more frightened than you were. For they can see that the medical services exist, but they are priced beyond their financial ability to access them. And this, while living in a country of such seeming wealth and plenty. And they do not even have the option of going back across the border for help.

ABB,

What I found scary was, that the people there felt the system they had was so bad, that I'd be better off driving eight to ten hours rather than see a doc in a clinic an hour away.

We currently live in a nasty cycle. Hospitals face the choice of operating at a loss or increasing the cost to the patients they serve. Patients unable to afford health care, end up in emergency rooms sicker than if they had seen a GP in a clinic they can't afford to see. They can't pay the ER bill, so the hospital increases the cost to the paying patients again.

Then the constant drive to extract money from insurance companies. Last night alone, I saw three different ads on TV from big law firms seeking people who took this drug or that, the goal being to get these people into huge class action lawsuits. Does anyone have any idea what malpractice insurance costs? It's incredible and its going up so fast if I quoted a number, I'd be wrong before I hit the post button. Crap like this just drives up the health care cost issues.This is one area we need serious reform.

I'm not suggesting that someone who was harmed by careless doc or hospital shouldn't seek damages. Of course not.

There's a lot of other crap going on that is driving the costs up too.

Requiring employers of low wage jobs to provide insurance isn't the answer either. I don't care to pay $5.00 for a just burger at MacDs. (uhg, don't eat there anyway) but you see the point is, it's a complicated thing and the more complicated it is, the less I want to see the government form yet another bureaucracy to solve the issue.

I worked as a contractor for the Federal Gov for a while (GSA) and I'm telling you, it's damn scary the things you see go on. (I've seen the $50,000 hammers by the way. Al Gore handed them out to various regional offices for their work in 'reinventing government saving everyone money'.) Does the government need to be involved? Probably.

Do we need a universal heath care system like Canada or Great Britain or France? I hope not. What we should find a way to do is put those that can't afford insurance into a safety net and get them the care they need at a reasonable cost to everyone.

MJL

 

[MistyS]

Universal Healthcare.

U.S. Should join the civilized world.

 

[SweetErika]

Universal Healthcare.

U.S. Should join the civilized world.

Would you care to expand on that, Misty?

Are you in the U.S., or a country with universal health care?

 

[bailadora]

One of my questions regarding universal care is who gets ultimate say when it comes to the patient's health? From what I've seen in the posts so far (and please correct me if I am wrong) - it seems you would be at the mercy of your doc if there's a disagreement regarding the best course of action.

While I'm not always happy with how much it costs - I do feel that I have more freedom of choice with the private insurance plan I have. For instance, if I voice a concern to my doc and he dismisses it as nonsense - I am free to take my $ (insurance and otherwise) and seek care from someone else who WILL listen to me. I've done this in the past - when I felt certain tests were necessary and he did not. Had I not been my own advocate - I'd never have found out I have a serious but very treatable blood clotting condition. Yes - it did cost me some out of pocket and it did take me a while to pay off some of the costs. But the doc and the labs were willing to work with me and accept a payment plan. For me and my peace of mind - it was money well spent to have the problem resolved on MY terms.

That being said - I also realize not everyone can afford private insurance, so I agree that there should be some sort of safety net for those who are unable to afford it. But quite frankly - I'm not sure the best way to accomplish this. I'm very leery of the gov't having total control
over the health care system, because despite their best intentions - when they step in to fix a problem - they always seem to screw it up. For proof- all you have to do is look at the mess that is our welfare and social security systems (which is a whole other can of worms).

This is an interesting debate, folks. I'm interested in what others have to say.

Edited to add: ABB brings up a good point re: the VA and the "quality" care it provides our military vets. My gramps is more than eligible for the free care through this system, but absolutely REFUSES to set foot anywhere near there. Although he and gran are on a fixed income, he pays out of pocket for private insurance and care because of the difference in care level. That's something else to think about before we start pushing for universal care here. If our government can't even take care of our military vets in a quality manner - what makes us think they can do it for the general public?

 

[alaskabibear]

One of my questions regarding universal care is who gets ultimate say when it comes to the patient's health? From what I've seen in the posts so far (and please correct me if I am wrong) - it seems you would be at the mercy of your doc if there's a disagreement regarding the best course of action.

While I'm not always happy with how much it costs - I do feel that I have more freedom of choice with the private insurance plan I have. For instance, if I voice a concern to my doc and he dismisses it as nonsense - I am free to take my $ (insurance and otherwise) and seek care from someone else who WILL listen to me. I've done this in the past - when I felt certain tests were necessary and he did not. Had I not been my own advocate - I'd never have found out I have a serious but very treatable blood clotting condition. Yes - it did cost me some out of pocket and it did take me a while to pay off some of the costs. But the doc and the labs were willing to work with me and accept a payment plan. For me and my peace of mind - it was money well spent to have the problem resolved on MY terms.

That being said - I also realize not everyone can afford private insurance, so I agree that there should be some sort of safety net for those who are unable to afford it. But quite frankly - I'm not sure the best way to accomplish this. I'm very leery of the gov't having total control
over the health care system, because despite their best intentions - when they step in to fix a problem - they always seem to screw it up. For proof- all you have to do is look at the mess that is our welfare and social security systems (which is a whole other can of worms).

This is an interesting debate, folks. I'm interested in what others have to say.

Edited to add: ABB brings up a good point re: the VA and the "quality" care it provides our military vets. My gramps is more than eligible for the free care through this system, but absolutely REFUSES to set foot anywhere near there. Although he and gran are on a fixed income, he pays out of pocket for private insurance and care because of the difference in care level. That's something else to think about before we start pushing for universal care here. If our government can't even take care of our military vets in a quality manner - what makes us think they can do it for the general public?

bailadora,

One thing for sure, this is a complicated issue. I just recently read Barack Obama's draft health care plan and he has some good ideas about how to both bring the insurance companies under some control and provide health insurance for those who don't have it. I have to think that if the majority of the people in this country cry out for it, the politicians will bend to the task. ( however, there are two big dangers; 1. the special interests will rig the outcome to put more $ in their pockets or, 2. the government will take over too much control and screw it all up.)

Your point on the doc having too much control is valid (that happens now with a lot of the HMO's, where a person can't go outside of the "system"). But on the other hand, this also happens with the insurance companies refusal to "authorize" something that the doc does feel needs to be done (and my guess is that this happens more frequently than the other).

Well, I think something is going to be done soon - just hope it works to the good of most people!

 

[SweetErika]

Well, I think something is going to be done soon - just hope it works to the good of most people!

AKbi, what makes you think something will be done soon?

If Bush hasn't made an effort in 8 years, I seriously doubt he's going to.

As far as I can tell, none of the Republican frontrunners have a very solid plan for overhauling the system. They're all talking about increasing competition, tax credits/deductions, helping the poor and personal responsibility--the same buzzwords Bush used, IIRC. Some of them certainly have some good ideas, but I can't find much in the way of actual plans for real change, especially for the middle class. All of them say they wouldn't raise taxes to pay for their plans, but none of them specify how much they'd cost or they'd pay for them.

The Democratic front-runners seem to share many ideas for cutting costs with the Republicans (e.g. better health info systems, cutting out frivolous lawsuits and Medicaid/Medicare spending, reducing non-emergent ER use), but are pushing for everyone to have insurance through federal and/or private insurers. All of them say there needs to be better regulation of insurance companies, Americans should be able to get FDA-approved drugs from other countries and people should be able to band together to buy insurance. All of them have cost estimates for their plans and plan to rollback some of Bush's tax cuts for people making over $250,000 to pay for them.

Congress hasn't done anything significant to overhaul the system yet, so I don't think we can put the onus on them to do so in the future, regardless of who our next president is.

To me, it looks like the Democrats have more concrete plans for real change in general right now. However, I don't trust our politicians to make significant change happen; decisions are too easily bought, and we all know about campaign promises.

In the end, I think it's going to take a big grassroots movement to enact real change. We, as Americans, have to care more than to talk about wanting change - we have to organize and be very loud and clear about what we want/need. We're also going to have to be willing to look at the issues, reevaluate our priorities, vote with our brains and just plain vote. Being ignorant, too lazy to vote, toeing the party line and voting for those who look like fun people to watch the game with obviously hasn't worked thus far, so it's unlikely to start working in the future.

Again, this isn't meant to start a debate or discuss politics. It's simply my viewpoint on where change is most likely to grow. I'd really like to hear yours, Alaskabibear, and others' thoughts on how we might best get the ball of change rolling more quickly than 5-9 years from now. .

 

[mjl2010]

Again, this isn't meant to start a debate or discuss politics. It's simply my viewpoint on where change is most likely to grow. I'd really like to hear yours, Alaskabibear, and others' thoughts on how we might best get the ball of change rolling more quickly than 5-9 years from now. .

Oh Jeez, I'm gonna open my yap. <rolls up sleeves>

Ericka, the answer is plain and simple and you already stated it. Americans need to get off their collective asses and get out and vote. They need to write letters and make phone calls and tell the people holding office what they want. If their representatives don't give them that, then they vote someone else in who will.

It doesn't matter which party is in office. That's the part no one gets. They all squabble over donkeys and elephants. Suck it up people and take some personal responsibility. Politicians walk on people because people let them and people think that one party is going to help them or the other is not. So not true and it's so been shown in the past.

Truly, I don't think either party has the guts or the wherewithal to do what needs to be done. There's too damn much money involved. On the other hand, if everyone got off their ass and told the pandering bastards to do the same, something might happen.

Oh I'm getting riled now. Where's my soapbox? Ah there it is! <steps up>

The big problem is too many people in this country do not value the freedoms they have. They don't vote. They don't bother to learn about the candidates running for office. They rely on newspapers and the half hour six p.m. news to give them the information and they just are not going to get it there. They need to write candidates and ask tough questions. The news media isn't going to answer them in any meaningful way. they broadcast sound bites and half sentences, then people take those and turn them into an idea of what the candidate represents or believes in.

The news media is other side of the problem. I forget the name of the association right now, but a few years back, all the big journalists met in a huge convention in Minnesota. One thing that was put to the floor, was that journalists had a responsibility to give both sides of a story. Know what? The resolution was voted down and not by a small margin. WTF? And these are the people America relies on for their information when they go to the polls. No, the news media in these United States has an agenda and it's not serving the American People, it's serving themselves and making money.

Is that a shock to anyone? Anyone at all? Wake up and smell the coffee already. Get off your ass and vote and vote with your head, not your ass or your dick or whatever. Know the issues and know how the candidates stand on them.

I can just imagine the shock at the polls if 90 per cent of eligible Americans showed up to vote. Utter Mayhem. And the News Media would have a field day with that, criticizing every county clerk in the U.S. for not being prepared. The two main parties would be screaming foul and we'd be back to counting hanging and pregnant chads again. Good God!

No. Until people wake up and get off their asses, nothing is going to happen. Nothing at all. I don't blame the republicans. I don't blame the democrats. I blame the people for becoming sheep being led to the slaughter. Because if the people don't wake up, thats what's going to happen, we're going to become more mindless and lose more freedoms and....

Yeah, what's the use?

End Rant.

MJL

A guy I worked with once was bitching and moaning about Bush getting re-elected. On and on he went and I was getting tired of it. "Well, in four years you get a chance to vote again," I told him. "Oh I don't vote. I don't have time." Yeah right, then quit yer bitching.

 

[bailadora]

But on the other hand, this also happens with the insurance companies refusal to "authorize" something that the doc does feel needs to be done (and my guess is that this happens more frequently than the other).

ABB - I've been on this side of the coin as well - and it's no fun. One of my kids needed serious speech therapy and insurance wouldn't pony up. In the end - we worked out a plan with the provider and while $ was tight - I'd do it again in a heartbeat. Today, you'd never know that there were doubts my kid would ever talk.

We, as Americans, have to care more than to talk about wanting change . .

Ericka - I have to agree with MJL and say herein lies the problem. We like to talk a good game, but when push comes to shove - we wimp out. Yeah - we might talk about getting involved and maybe some might go so far as to actually research, volunteer with some organization, etc. But the moment we think it's interfering too much with our personal lives - we back out (been guilty of this myself). Bottom line is that unless something directly affects them in an adverse manner, most people are content to let it remain someone else's problem. Honestly - I'm not sure what it's going to take to get people pissed off enough to band together and say this stops now. I think in reality - the majority of everyday Americans don't REALLY care enough to get involved and stay the course. I don't mean to be negative, but facts are facts. Until the apathy stops, no real change can occur.

 

[alaskabibear]

All Too True

Erika, MJL and bailadora,

I fear that what you have all collectively said is the sad truth. The lack of citizen interest, understanding and participation in government is precisely why the nation is facing the problems that we are, because this has led to a loss of real control by the people. Imagine the waste and lost opportunities squandered over the years as the federal government slipped out of the hands of the people and into the hands of special interest groups.

Erika, to answer your question regarding what I meant when I said that I think something will be done soon; I am assuming that the Democrats will win the upcoming election (if they don't, I think we can all forget about any meaningful change). I have read Barack Obama's proposed health care plan (heck, they even had a place on their site asking for input so I wrote them an email). And while the plan is just a proposal, it does seem to address the major issues - it seems like a place to start anyway. I think John Edwards is similar (and I do like his anger against the special interests). So, that was my basis for thinking something will happen soon (soon being some time after the next election).

But what to do about the real problem of a loss of representation in Washington for the "people"? If this were easy, it would have been done already! But, just to say that we should all vote is not enough (but a good start). I myself am guilty of giving up hope that my vote would mean anything, and I know I am not unique. It is an apathy born of a loss of faith in our system. However, in an attempt to be positive here is one thought (just don't ask me how to do something like this - it just seems too big to me);

We have all heard about lobby groups. The problem as I see it is that the biggest group in the country has no lobby. And that group is the middle class. We have groups like AARP for the old people, NRA for the hunters, the NAACP for the black minority, labor unions all have one, etc. But, who represents the average working people when the "dirty deals" are being negotiated in the dark of the night? I know that the "political parties" are supposed to serve this purpose, but they don't. Imagine the power this group would have with the monetary and human resources to actually have a voice that would be heard along with all of the other paid lobby groups. AND, the FIRST thing that should be pushed through (IMHO) is term limits for for the House and Senate - this would stop, or at least slow down, the entrenched corruption of "our" elected officials that is caused by year after year of sleeping with the enemy. So, if anyone knows of such a lobby group, tell me where to sign up and I'll send a check! (but now we are getting off the subject of health care and into politics - opps!)

 

[PertPerth]

Wow, it's been a while since I've read this thread - quite a heated converstation going on. Good points on both sides.
(Oh and a reminder : I'm in Australia.)
Forgetting about having private insurance or not, one of the things I have noticed (and spoken to people in the medical field about) is that many GPs, specialists, oby/gyn, doctors in general are electing to retire early due to the increase of THEIR professional insurance. Especially in the womens care area. Many oby/gyn wont do home births due to the fact that any complication means a legal nightmare for them. I used to go to a GP who would bulk-bill (ie charged the minimum amount and I was not having to pay extra as I normally do now) but she closed her clinic down 3 years ago because it wasn't worth her keeping her clinic running with the extra cost of insurance for the clinic (I think she said the INCREASE was over $10 per year for her alone).
I guess my point is that insurance companies have a lot to do with the 'medical crisis' many of us are experiencing; as well as people who sue unnecessarily. Yes, sue when there is a reason....but remember that the money has to come from somewhere - usually everyones insurance fees.

 

[SweetErika]

We have all heard about lobby groups. The problem as I see it is that the biggest group in the country has no lobby. And that group is the middle class. We have groups like AARP for the old people, NRA for the hunters, the NAACP for the black minority, labor unions all have one, etc. But, who represents the average working people when the "dirty deals" are being negotiated in the dark of the night? I know that the "political parties" are supposed to serve this purpose, but they don't. Imagine the power this group would have with the monetary and human resources to actually have a voice that would be heard along with all of the other paid lobby groups. AND, the FIRST thing that should be pushed through (IMHO) is term limits for for the House and Senate - this would stop, or at least slow down, the entrenched corruption of "our" elected officials that is caused by year after year of sleeping with the enemy. So, if anyone knows of such a lobby group, tell me where to sign up and I'll send a check! (but now we are getting off the subject of health care and into politics - opps!)

I'm not a fan of lobby groups in general, but I don't see how that will ever change, so I think you've got quite an idea there.

I know he's part of the "evil media" but I wonder if Lou Dobbs would put his money where his mouth is and head something like that up, given his focus on issues that affect the middle class. I bet he'd get a lot of bipartisan (multipartisan, really) support.


And, Pert, I don't see this as a heated discussion at all. I think everyone is very passionate about their beliefs, but we're keeping it at exchanging ideas, rather than trying to discredit them. It's the difference between a tightly controlled burn and a big fire, IMO. I really couldn't be more pleased at how this discussion has been going, though I wouldn't expect anything less from its participants thus far.

 

[bailadora]

Forgetting about having private insurance or not, one of the things I have noticed (and spoken to people in the medical field about) is that many GPs, specialists, oby/gyn, doctors in general are electing to retire early due to the increase of THEIR professional insurance.

Pert, yes this is a big problem in the States as well - especially in the more rural areas. I'm not sure how it is in the land of Oz - but the perception here is that if you are an MD, you must be raking in the cash and living the good life - when that just isn't so. I've a friend who just finished his residency last year and from what I've learned from him - the costs to enter into and remain in private practice are astronomical. Of course these costs don't even include the payments he's making on the student loans he took out to get his education.

I guess my point is that insurance companies have a lot to do with the 'medical crisis' many of us are experiencing; as well as people who sue unnecessarily. Yes, sue when there is a reason....but remember that the money has to come from somewhere - usually everyones insurance fees.

I have to agree and say that IMO - the high cost of malpractice insurance resulting from too many lawsuits is a major factor (and quite possibly the biggest factor) in elevating medical fees. I'd like to see serious reform in this area.

 

[bailadora]

As the debate over universal healthcare in America continues to rage, I thought I'd post a link to an article I recently read regarding women veterans and the medical care they receive through the VA administration. Back when Erika first started this thread, I posed the question as to whether or not the US government could find the funding to provide quality care to the general population when it seemed it could not even keep it's promise of quality care to our veterans and I cited my grandfather's negative experience of the VA. This article seems to be even more of an indictment, stating in part:

The insensitivity of some VA staffers is staggering. In testimony before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs last July, Bhagwati, executive director of Service Women's Action Network, told the story of a woman who, while having her annual checkup and Pap smear at the local VA hospital, asked to have a female present in the exam room (as VA policy requires) and explained to the male gynecologist that she suffered from military sexual trauma. Leaving the room, the doctor barked down the hall, "We've got another one!"

And there are more basic problems as well. By directive, VA staff are encouraged to give vets being treated for post-traumatic stress disorder and military sexual trauma the option of a same-sex counselor when clinically indicated. But it's not required, so such a request can be ignored. What's more, there simply may not be enough female therapists. One survey found that some VA centers have few or none at all, so only 6.7 percent of women can be assured a same-sex counselor, another 8.2 percent will almost certainly be assigned to a male, and for the remainder it varies widely.

Nor can women always get into an all-female therapy group. Like the former Army reservist from Minnesota, Aston Tedford, 27, who served in Afghanistan from November 2002 to August 2003, found herself the sole female in a PTSD group in Ohio. "When I tried to talk, I was always being shut down by the male vets."

Even inpatient facilities for mental-health care often overlook women's needs. In her testimony for the House, Bhagwati cited the case of a troubled Iraq war veteran who checked herself into a California VA psychiatric unit and was forced to share a bathroom with male veterans, including a Peeping Tom. When the Minneapolis vet, hospitalized during a particularly rough time, reported that she'd been threatened by one of the male patients on the ward, a doctor replied, "Sorry, we don't have programs for women."

The full article can be found here.

Reading this article made me question once again whether government funded, quality care is really feasible. I just can't see how the US government can do for the general populace what it can't even do for it's own vets, an admittedly much smaller group.

 

[midwestyankee]

As the debate over universal healthcare in America continues to rage, I thought I'd post a link to an article I recently read regarding women veterans and the medical care they receive through the VA administration. Back when Erika first started this thread, I posed the question as to whether or not the US government could find the funding to provide quality care to the general population when it seemed it could not even keep it's promise of quality care to our veterans and I cited my grandfather's negative experience of the VA. This article seems to be even more of an indictment, stating in part:



The full article can be found here.

Reading this article made me question once again whether government funded, quality care is really feasible. I just can't see how the US government can do for the general populace what it can't even do for it's own vets, an admittedly much smaller group.

The fallacy in this question is that it assumes that if an organization does a poor job at one thing that it will, by definition, do a similarly poor job at everything it attempts. I'm sure the folks at NASA in the 1960s space race would have laughed at this notion. So, too, would the millions of elderly Americans who are quite content with Medicare. And if you are fair about it, you could also name operations of the federal government that run well.

The problems at the VA are manifold and not the least is the fact that GW Bush slashed their budget several times during his eight year reign as our most recent Imperial Republican incumbent.

 

[unregistered]

 

[JMohegan]

I'm surprised no one has menitoned Health Savings Accounts yet. My husband's current and my former employer offer insurance options and the HSA option works well for us. I've had countless conversations with people and the myriad reasons the HSA doesn't make sense for them, but I think it is a great plan.

As long as your husband isn't laid off or forced to quit due to debilitating illness or some other unforeseen factor, and assuming that you never have an expensive medical incident during which the insurance company finds reason to cancel your coverage when you most need it, that does sound great.

How much does your health care plan cost your husband's employer? Do you know?

 

[Keroin]

I am Canadian but I have lived in a few other countries. I have visited a doctor or hospital in the US, Costa Rica, the Bahamas, Mexico, Japan, the Cook Islands and New Zealand.

So far, hands down, the best experiences have been in Canada and New Zealand. My two US experiences weren't bad just really, really expensive, involved a long wait and I left with a grocery list of prescription meds for relatively simple conditions.

The Canadian medical system is not perfect but I don't worry about going bankrupt to pay medical bills. When I need care I get it and it's good quality care. And I don't mind paying higher taxes to ensure everyone, rich or poor, has access to decent health care.

 

[unregistered]

 

[viper2000]

oooo this is interesting sicko is a great movie. Im a aussie ive had private health for some time it cost me 40 a month for me alone and i bearly used it upon going to uni ive found i cant afford to continue to pay it and now use public (universal) health care. It was a good safety net since ive repped aus in sport but in the end id have to pay excess just to go to a hospital under private health. It scares me that Australia is trying to go in the direction of the U.S because it seems to many fall through the cracks in that system private vs health system. I wish to point out this is my pov not facts so please do not take offense if you are offended im sorry but i think money shouldn`t be the divide for health care because it our humanity to care for one another that helps in part to make us human.

 

[DarkBee]

I live in The Netherlands, and the government gives everyone a small sum of money each month to cover part of the costs of universal health care. It's been real easy to get insurance over here, and I like it this way; even with my low income I'm still covered for most basic health care (would I ever need it).

 

[Mac98]

I'm a french canadian and her in QC, it's hard to find a doctor who'll actually give you the time of day. I'm all for universal healthcare and believe the idea itself is great, but that doesn't mean that it'll make you invincible or treat your malignant tumour. I've had to wait 22 hours in line before getting treated for 45 minutes and going back home because the doc replied "It's all in your head" (which we later found out it wasn't). 22 fucken hours for nothing!

However, like most people pointed out, at least we aren't completely denied health care because we're lower-class citizens. We still get the right to be treated (and to me, this shouldn't even be a priviledge... it IS a right!).

And for the rich folk who pay extra in taxes, or those who pay the taxes even though they've only been to the clinic 2ce in their whole lives... most of those people don't bitch about the system because most realize that it's ideal and are happy to fork over a little money to help others who aren't as fortunate. THE SYSTEM WORKS!

And I pray (to whatever higher power there is) that the US will FINALLY wake up and join the rest of the world. Especially since we all know the US has no middle ground (no middle-class). Good luck to you all in your quest for Universal Healthcare. Surely you need it.

 

[Bandit58]

I live in Australia. I think that we have an okish system, but there definitely room for improvement! The biggest difference is CHOICE of who you see and the time it takes to get an appointment.

There is an extra health care tax if you don't have private health insurance.

A new policy has been introduced (about 5 years ago) that if you're over 30 and haven't joined private health insurance, then you will pay a premium on top of normal health insurance cover. It goes up every year over the age of 30 (can't remember the exact figures, but something like 5% each year. So if you you're 40 and only NOW want insurance, you'd be paying an extra 50% compared to what you would have paid if you had joined private cover and STAYED covered. It doens't matter the insurance.)

If you're a low-income earner or have a concession of some kind, you can get a health-care card. This will entitle you to "free" or "bulk-billed" doctors visits. Else you have to pay a "gap" which is about $20 for a 15 min visit ($50 full charge).

All optometrists bulk-bill for eye exams. Glasses cost more.

I'm under 30 and never plan on not having private insurance.

As a single on a plan which doesn't cover having a baby (waiting period of one year) I pay about $1200 a year. It covers me for hospital and some extras - I am always out of pocket at the doctor and dentist and for scripts. Dentist and other specialists I do get a small % back, but it's capped.

My father had his knee replaced in the private system - phoned up and was operated on in 6 weeks; choice of doctor and hospital. He would have been out of pocket for whatever option he's got with his health insurance (ie mine is $500) and the "gap" of the doctors (in his case, just a little extra). My neighbour went through the Medicare/government system, waited 6 months; no choice of doctor etc and didn't pay anything. I think she's also on a pension, so her GPs also bulk-billed.
After an operation, the government pays for 25% of the "scheduled fee" and the private insurance company pays the other 75%. The extra is up to the patient to pay.

Not sure about the public dentists. Dental care is still very expensive (ie just for a check up, I'm still out of pocket about $80 per visit - after my private health rebate).

There is also a "safety net". You can use medical expenses over the amount of $1500 as a tax deduction - but you need proof.

If I think of anything else, I'll edit this post.

Like Pert, we are in Australia. We are both on welfare (pensions), Gil on disability and me on a carer's payment. We don't pay to go to the doctor but we do have to pay for prescriptions at a concession rate ($5.40 each this year), and when we reach 60 they are free.

I must point out that not all drugs are on the "free list", e.g. I pay $45 a month for my HRT. I also believe that some drugs are being removed from the list, including the flu vaccine. Gil will still get it free because he's in an at-risk group, but looks like I may have to pay up to $60 even though I'm on a concession (not sure at this stage).

I just had a colonoscopy that I waited over 4 months for, but was for screening only there were no nasty symptoms so I assume if I did have anything going on I would have got in sooner. I also had an MRI, some of which Medicare covered but I still had to pay $185 in gap payments. Gil has had several emergency fistulagrams at a private hospital but these are bulk billed and he got in quickly - this was essential as his fistula is needed in good working order for the dialysis.

We do home haemodialysis, the machine is supplied free as are all the supplies which are delivered once a month. We had to pay to get the plumbing done though. By doing dialysis at home we free up a space at the hospital for someone else plus we save the government thousands of dollars a year.

I believe that I am better off here in Australia than I would be if I'd stayed in NZ - even with a concession card and being on the age pension my mother still has to pay $35 every time she goes to the doctor

 

[Luna_Bella]

I'm a french canadian and her in QC, it's hard to find a doctor who'll actually give you the time of day. I'm all for universal healthcare and believe the idea itself is great, but that doesn't mean that it'll make you invincible or treat your malignant tumour. I've had to wait 22 hours in line before getting treated for 45 minutes and going back home because the doc replied "It's all in your head" (which we later found out it wasn't). 22 fucken hours for nothing!

Same place same situation, I agree that the system works but it does have flaws,
like Mac said It is nothing here to wait a full day in the emergency room. Or to have to wait a full year to have allergy tests done when you are fatally allergic to something but don't know what.. (I know quite a few people who have gone through this, its like russian roulette, how can you avoid it if you don't know its coming?)
and don't even try to get a family doctor.... they will laugh at you.

now if that should be attributed to the system or to the lack of doctors in said system, who knows

 

[fire_breeze]

I'm a french canadian and her in QC, it's hard to find a doctor who'll actually give you the time of day. I'm all for universal healthcare and believe the idea itself is great, but that doesn't mean that it'll make you invincible or treat your malignant tumour. I've had to wait 22 hours in line before getting treated for 45 minutes and going back home because the doc replied "It's all in your head" (which we later found out it wasn't). 22 fucken hours for nothing!

Same place same situation, I agree that the system works but it does have flaws, like Mac said It is nothing here to wait a full day in the emergency room. Or to have to wait a full year to have allergy tests done when you are fatally allergic to something but don't know what.. (I know quite a few people who have gone through this, its like russian roulette, how can you avoid it if you don't know its coming?)
and don't even try to get a family doctor.... they will laugh at you.

now if that should be attributed to the system or to the lack of doctors in said system, who knows

Really? Wow!!! I think I'm realising how lucky I am - I'm from the same area and I never had any problems - the longest I had to wait was a couple of months for something so minor that it was on the bottom of the list. And I never had to wait for more than 4 hours in the emergency room, the very few times that I went.

Granted, the Quebec government and the Régie are royally fucking everything up, making it a very unappealing province to work as a GP (and not to mention the maudit language laws, but I digress and that's something entirely different.) But at least health is a right and not a privilege to every citizen.

Luna, have you tried to get into a clinic associated with a university - from your profile, you said you were a student, so I gather that you are in uni. University health care/clinics tend to be very good and you can get necessary exams considerably quicker.

I know that I, for one, am following the debate in the US very closely and with great interest.

 

[unregistered]