General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAfter a request to make this an OP: When the system is run largely by insurers who largely deny claims from the insured
Did they expect to receive a triple A rating from those who they have bankrupted, threatened to bankrupt, or will bankrupt? When families either lose members altogether, or else are forced to watch members die slowly due to being denied care, does anyone really expect them to be viewed favorably by an adoring public?
I travel a lot here in Europe, and despite the wishful thinkers, the reality is that each country here has its own system of health care. Ironically, in my experience, the country that offers the fewest complaints about its system of health care is the otherwise-bureaucratically paralyzed France. The Germans say that they have ten bureaucrats for every one they need, and the French say they have ten bureaucrats for every one in Germany. In Sweden, I was told "man måste vara nästan död för att komma i sjukhuset," or "you gotta be almost dead to get into the hospital." I have often told my own story about how I managed to talk my way into a German cardiology practice, and thus saved my own life. Fortunately, once you ARE insured here, then the coverage is usually honored. Because my wife had no mandated health insurance from ages 60-65, I paid for her health insurance out of my own pocket, between 550 and 600 a month. When she got an "always fatal" rare form of cancer at age 64, that insurance DID pick up the bill, which could have ruined me if we hadn't gotten the insurance. It was optional, not mandated. Without it, I would have lost either her or our house eight years ago.
No one should lose their life, or their home because they got sick.
Also, the advantage plans are only making the insurance companies richer, they should be outlawed.
DFW
(56,897 posts)I did not see any great advantage in enrolling in any of them.
Passages
(1,430 posts)S/V Loner
(9,138 posts)had help from a woman at out senior center. After looking at different policies I said to her that straight medicare gave me reliable coverage and I could keep my Doctors. The medicare advantage programs seemed cheaper but I told her that I am not a gambler and the advantage programs worked best if I was lucky not to get a serious illness. She agreed that I would be gambling. I stuck with medicare.
snot
(10,812 posts)my friend developed a very serious condition. It had begun back in the US, and the docs there had just brushed him off, without explaining the more serious interpretations that might have been signalled by his symptoms, or anything he might have done to prevent it from becoming worse. Note, this was in a major metropolitan area, not some backwater where good doctors might be harder to find.
When his condition did become worse in London, we were able to walk into a hospital without an appointment and get immediate consultation, testing, and excellent advice. Unfortunately it was too late to do much to ameliorate the condition, but at least they recognized and explained it, and in such a way that it was clear what might have helped had he gotten better advice sooner. We were in and out before the day was done.
Whatever may be wrong with the UK's national health service, I think I'd still prefer it to ours.
SidneyR
(126 posts)It was systematically starved for funding by the conservative governments.
quakerboy
(14,206 posts)As a visitor who picked up a nasty bug on the way over.. they not only saw me ASAP, the dr i saw had the best bedside manner of any medical professional ive ever met, and they paid for my cab back to the hotel.
Swede
(34,876 posts)Had a stint put in. 5 days in intensive care. 1 ambulance ride from one hospital to the other (one had better cardio unit). Blood tests every day, blood pressure, O2, etc etc. All in hospital drugs where no charge.
Grand total of the bill was $0.00
snot
(10,812 posts)until a few days before the procedure.
Informative