An experience of universal healthcare

[Ernie S.]

I do. You started this thread by stating that you had had a serious illness. I will not wait 5 days to be treated for a serious illness here. Why are you so complacent?

 

[Saigon]

Ernie -

Either you have horribly misunderstood the situation, or you're being facetious.

Any hospital in the world is going to react differently to a patient who might die within hours, than to one whose condition is relatively stable. It's simple common sense.

Seeing a consultant on a Friday and beginning treatment on a Wednesday is EXTREMELY rapid work for a hospital dealing with a non-urgent condition.

 

[Ernie S.]

Again. You said "serious illness". I classify serious illness as something I should be treated for TODAY. Now, maybe your serious illness wasn't so serious. If this is the case, then it's not my fault you were overly dramatic.

 

[Saigon]

Ernie -

Not all serious illnesses require urgent treatment, because they don't actually change or worsen from one day to the next. In my case, I wasn't in any pain or discomfort at all, nor in any danger of dying or the condition suddeinly worsening. Of course, I wouldn't have wanted to have left it for months, but I had expected that treatment might have started 2-3 weeks later than it did.

As I mentioned, there were only 3 working days between consultation and treatment, and possibly that would have been a day less in some hospitals the US, but quite possibly also a day or two later, I suspect.

 

[Politico]

HUCH (Helsinki Regional Hospital Services) have access to my records, and I signed a form allowing that information to be available to my GP and visa versa.

My specialist signs off on my care, and that information is forwarded to the Ministry of Health. So they have access to my name, personal id number, and the extent of my treatment - but not the nature of that treatment. At least, that is how I understand it.

I agree that in the US each citizens gets what they pay for, and that is fair enough, I suppose. But for myself I like that one vendor provides excellent services to all. I like that some old lady can get a retinal transplant that allows her to live alone another 10 years, or that some kid can get a kidney transplant without it bankrupting his parents.

And right now I like that for all my years paying taxes, I can enjoy excellent care without having to even think - am I covered for this shit? Can I afford this?

Would you like to be missing a hand or dead because you had to wait a week for a referral? I was admitted to the hospital in septic shock It's very likely that I didn't HAVE a week to wait for the bureaucratic wheels to be greased.

Have you considered how less serious your illness might have been had you received prompt treatment?

But they didn't have to wait a week because their first visit was not to a doctor in the public system.......oh wait......nevermind.

 

[Ernie S.]

Ernie -

Not all serious illnesses require urgent treatment, because they don't actually change or worsen from one day to the next. In my case, I wasn't in any pain or discomfort at all, nor in any danger of dying or the condition suddeinly worsening. Of course, I wouldn't have wanted to have left it for months, but I had expected that treatment might have started 2-3 weeks later than it did.

As I mentioned, there were only 3 working days between consultation and treatment, and possibly that would have been a day less in some hospitals the US, but quite possibly also a day or two later, I suspect.

You keep saying 3 working days like the weekend doesn't count when you're sick. Medicine works 7 days a week here.

I get it that you didn't think a 5 day delay in treatment was a big deal. I guess you're complacent in what the Finnish government doles out to you. I'd rather be in charge of my own health care, thank you.
My only bureaucratic hurdle came when I changed doctors. I simply called the insurance company and gave them some background on the surgeon and they agreed that he was far from the best candidate for my after care. I had a list of 3 hand surgeons and they picked the one closest to me, likely because they would be paying for my transportation. I was fortunate that the guy they chose was the hand surgeon to the stars. He is the guy the Miami Dolphins and Miami Heat and the Florida Marlins send injured players to.
So, I got the best possible care with no wait, a minimum of bureaucracy and zero out of pocket expense other than the Cuban coffees I bought my driver most mornings.

 

[Toro]

During the last few months I have faced a fairly serious illness, and thought it might be interesting for US posters to know how the system works here.

I initially saw a private doctor, as I had sore ribs after a football accident the previous evening and wanted to get it checked out the same day. A consultation and an X-ray set me back €120, and after that I was referred to the public sector. (Had I gone to a public sector doctor, I'd probably have waited 3-4 days and not been able to choose an appointment time)

After a delay of one week I had a few hours worth of tests, and then waited another week to meet with a specialist. After the meeting with the specialist on a Friday, I began treatment the following Wednesday.

The half-day of testing cost me €29, and the meeting with the specialist another €29. I did spend €77 on medications, but from that point on all of the treatment has been completely free, based on the specialists recommendation. So the total cost of the entire treatment program will be around €150.

To my mind, the service has been amazing. All of the people I have met have been fantastic. The facilities and equipment have been state of the art, the nurses friendly and helpful, and the service excellent.

Healthcare may not be as good in every country that has universal healthcare, but my experience has convinced me that the service we get here is likely as good as most hospitals in the US - and it is covered efficiently and easily through my taxes. It's available to everyone, it is fast and it works.

2.5 weeks seems like a long time to get that fixed.

But all that probably would have cost $5000 or some silly number in the US.

 

[CowboyTed]

Ernie -

Not all serious illnesses require urgent treatment, because they don't actually change or worsen from one day to the next. In my case, I wasn't in any pain or discomfort at all, nor in any danger of dying or the condition suddeinly worsening. Of course, I wouldn't have wanted to have left it for months, but I had expected that treatment might have started 2-3 weeks later than it did.

As I mentioned, there were only 3 working days between consultation and treatment, and possibly that would have been a day less in some hospitals the US, but quite possibly also a day or two later, I suspect.

You keep saying 3 working days like the weekend doesn't count when you're sick. Medicine works 7 days a week here.

I get it that you didn't think a 5 day delay in treatment was a big deal. I guess you're complacent in what the Finnish government doles out to you. I'd rather be in charge of my own health care, thank you.
My only bureaucratic hurdle came when I changed doctors. I simply called the insurance company and gave them some background on the surgeon and they agreed that he was far from the best candidate for my after care. I had a list of 3 hand surgeons and they picked the one closest to me, likely because they would be paying for my transportation. I was fortunate that the guy they chose was the hand surgeon to the stars. He is the guy the Miami Dolphins and Miami Heat and the Florida Marlins send injured players to.
So, I got the best possible care with no wait, a minimum of bureaucracy and zero out of pocket expense other than the Cuban coffees I bought my driver most mornings.

Ernie,

You have no clue between 'Serious' and 'Urgent'.

Also does your doctor to the stars just sit around all day waiting for you to ring or does he have appointments to deal with?

The Finnish system costs almost half what the US system does and it covers all the people. It is very easy having a heath system that doesn't cover the poorest 10+%.

The US system is a piece of crap, Obamacare is better but is far from the Universal Healthcare the US should be demanding.

You are a sheep to the well off.. You're one of the useful idiots...

 

[Ernie S.]

Ernie -

Not all serious illnesses require urgent treatment, because they don't actually change or worsen from one day to the next. In my case, I wasn't in any pain or discomfort at all, nor in any danger of dying or the condition suddeinly worsening. Of course, I wouldn't have wanted to have left it for months, but I had expected that treatment might have started 2-3 weeks later than it did.

As I mentioned, there were only 3 working days between consultation and treatment, and possibly that would have been a day less in some hospitals the US, but quite possibly also a day or two later, I suspect.

You keep saying 3 working days like the weekend doesn't count when you're sick. Medicine works 7 days a week here.

I get it that you didn't think a 5 day delay in treatment was a big deal. I guess you're complacent in what the Finnish government doles out to you. I'd rather be in charge of my own health care, thank you.
My only bureaucratic hurdle came when I changed doctors. I simply called the insurance company and gave them some background on the surgeon and they agreed that he was far from the best candidate for my after care. I had a list of 3 hand surgeons and they picked the one closest to me, likely because they would be paying for my transportation. I was fortunate that the guy they chose was the hand surgeon to the stars. He is the guy the Miami Dolphins and Miami Heat and the Florida Marlins send injured players to.
So, I got the best possible care with no wait, a minimum of bureaucracy and zero out of pocket expense other than the Cuban coffees I bought my driver most mornings.

Ernie,

You have no clue between 'Serious' and 'Urgent'.

Also does your doctor to the stars just sit around all day waiting for you to ring or does he have appointments to deal with?

The Finnish system costs almost half what the US system does and it covers all the people. It is very easy having a heath system that doesn't cover the poorest 10+%.

The US system is a piece of crap, Obamacare is better but is far from the Universal Healthcare the US should be demanding.

You are a sheep to the well off.. You're one of the useful idiots...

You still haven't said what your "serious" illness was. My situation was both serious and urgent. Private practice doctors here can make that determination without jumping through bureaucratic hoops. He made such a determination and saw me 18 hours after he was informed of my situation.
The US system may cost more, but the care is superior, more timely and the patient, not the public is responsible for the bill.
In your system, yes, I would have been treated, but it is very likely I would have lost my hand. Therapy and a prosthesis would have made the bills similar or very possibly higher in the case of Finnish care solely because of the bureaucratic hurdles.
So The bill was, let's say, $100,000 under both systems. In mine, I have a left hand. In yours, I have a plastic thing that looks kind of like a hand.
Granted, under your system, it didn't cost me anything..... or did it? The problem is, it cost some poor bastard in Boise Idaho as much as it did me. Sorry but I feel I should be responsible for the debts I incur.

AND.... Our system does cover the poorest 10%. No one is turned away from emergency rooms here. Everyone is free to get the education and knowledge to obtain a job that offers insurance. Everyone has the right to earn money, but taking mine, against my will to pay for the unfortunate choices of others is just plain theft.

 

[CowboyTed]

Ernie -

Not all serious illnesses require urgent treatment, because they don't actually change or worsen from one day to the next. In my case, I wasn't in any pain or discomfort at all, nor in any danger of dying or the condition suddeinly worsening. Of course, I wouldn't have wanted to have left it for months, but I had expected that treatment might have started 2-3 weeks later than it did.

As I mentioned, there were only 3 working days between consultation and treatment, and possibly that would have been a day less in some hospitals the US, but quite possibly also a day or two later, I suspect.

You keep saying 3 working days like the weekend doesn't count when you're sick. Medicine works 7 days a week here.

I get it that you didn't think a 5 day delay in treatment was a big deal. I guess you're complacent in what the Finnish government doles out to you. I'd rather be in charge of my own health care, thank you.
My only bureaucratic hurdle came when I changed doctors. I simply called the insurance company and gave them some background on the surgeon and they agreed that he was far from the best candidate for my after care. I had a list of 3 hand surgeons and they picked the one closest to me, likely because they would be paying for my transportation. I was fortunate that the guy they chose was the hand surgeon to the stars. He is the guy the Miami Dolphins and Miami Heat and the Florida Marlins send injured players to.
So, I got the best possible care with no wait, a minimum of bureaucracy and zero out of pocket expense other than the Cuban coffees I bought my driver most mornings.

Ernie,

You have no clue between 'Serious' and 'Urgent'.

Also does your doctor to the stars just sit around all day waiting for you to ring or does he have appointments to deal with?

The Finnish system costs almost half what the US system does and it covers all the people. It is very easy having a heath system that doesn't cover the poorest 10+%.

The US system is a piece of crap, Obamacare is better but is far from the Universal Healthcare the US should be demanding.

You are a sheep to the well off.. You're one of the useful idiots...

You still haven't said what your "serious" illness was. My situation was both serious and urgent. Private practice doctors here can make that determination without jumping through bureaucratic hoops. He made such a determination and saw me 18 hours after he was informed of my situation.
The US system may cost more, but the care is superior, more timely and the patient, not the public is responsible for the bill.
In your system, yes, I would have been treated, but it is very likely I would have lost my hand. Therapy and a prosthesis would have made the bills similar or very possibly higher in the case of Finnish care solely because of the bureaucratic hurdles.
So The bill was, let's say, $100,000 under both systems. In mine, I have a left hand. In yours, I have a plastic thing that looks kind of like a hand.
Granted, under your system, it didn't cost me anything..... or did it? The problem is, it cost some poor bastard in Boise Idaho as much as it did me. Sorry but I feel I should be responsible for the debts I incur.

AND.... Our system does cover the poorest 10%. No one is turned away from emergency rooms here. Everyone is free to get the education and knowledge to obtain a job that offers insurance. Everyone has the right to earn money, but taking mine, against my will to pay for the unfortunate choices of others is just plain theft.

If the situation was both serious and urgent you are dealt with right on the spot...

The US system is not superior by studies done by the WHO and Commonwealth fund... Actually the Bush administration said if the WHO did another comparison study they would cut their funding.

So you are talking crap.

 

[Saigon]

Ernie -

I'd rather not say what my condition was/is....but I maintain that the service I have received has been staggeringly, amazingly good.

It costs less per taxpayer than most international systems do, and it is consistently rated in the Top 5 nations by outcomes.

As other posters have said - you do need to understand what 'urgent' care means to really appreciate that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Actually Americans do want quick, accessible, affordable, and quality health care. If free market forces can't do that for all Americans, then we must continue exploring government options.

 

[Dragonlady]

Actually Americans do want quick, accessible, affordable, and quality health care. If free market forces can't do that for all Americans, then we must continue exploring government options.

Everyone wants healthcare which is good, quick and cheap, but it doesn't exist - anywhere in the world. You can have two out of three, but not all three. In the US, you've had good and quick for some time, but it's not cheap, and it only exists because such a large percentage of your population has no health insurance at all so that your system isn't used to maximum capacity. In Canada, we have good and (relatively) cheap, but it's not as quick as the US, because our health care is used to capacity.
.
However, what is done in countries where costs are contained, is a "triage" system. If you are in need of immediate care, you get it. But if your situation isn't urgent, you have to wait a bit.
,
When I had my heart attack, I went straight to hospital and stayed there until I had recovered sufficiently to return home (a week). I was transported by ambulance to the regional testing centre for an angiogram, prior to my release. The hospital stay, doctors, treatment, tests, and ambulance were all paid by OHIP. I paid nothing, but my prescriptions after I left hospital cost me $175.

When my friend went to emergency with what she thought was flu or pneumonia, and was told she had an aggressive form of cancer, they wouldn't even let her go home and pick up a few things. She started chemo as soon as they stabilized her condition - 3 days later. But when she had needed a hip replacement, she had to wait three months.

 

[Saigon]

Interesting comments, Dragonlady.

I think that's a good overview and similar to our system. I am not sure what the delays are here for a hip replacement, but it could well be up to three months as well.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You might pay for a specialist here but you could have gone to the hospital and had your tests and xrays and not wasted that $120 you did.

Having tests presumes the presence of the equipment needed to conduct the tests.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The US system is a piece of crap

 

[Rikurzhen]

.
However, what is done in countries where costs are contained, is a "triage" system. If you are in need of immediate care, you get it. But if your situation isn't urgent, you have to wait a bit.

 

[Rikurzhen]

In Canada, we have good and (relatively) cheap, but it's not as quick as the US, because our health care is used to capacity.

Exactly. Canada can run more efficiently because it can use the US as a safety net.

More than 100 Canadian women with high-risk pregnancies have been sent to United States hospitals over the past year – in what a doctors' group attributes to the lack of a national birthing plan.

The problem has peaked, with British Columbia and Ontario each sending a record number of women to U.S. neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). Specifically, 80 B.C. women have been sent to U.S. hospitals since April 1, 2007; in Ontario, 28 have been sent since January of 2007, according to figures from the respective health ministries.

André Lalonde, executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, said the problem is due to bed closings that took place almost a decade ago, the absence of a national birthing initiative and too few staff.

“Neonatologists are very stretched right now,” Dr. Lalonde said in a telephone interview from Ottawa. “We're so stretched, it's kind of dangerous.”. . . .

The inability for Canada to care for all of its sick and premature babies has caught the attention of renowned pediatrics professor Shoo Lee, who is studying the health outcomes of infants sent abroad, in addition to those who remain here, often under stretched staffing conditions.

“If you have insufficient resources in the province, what does that mean for those kept in the system?” Dr. Lee, director of the Canadian Neonatal Network, said from Edmonton. “Are they being admitted to the NICU only when they are very sick? Are they being pushed out too early to make room for others?”

Philippe Chessex, division head of neonatology for B.C. Women's Hospital & Health Centre, said every effort is made to avoid out-of-province transfers. Even sick babies who aren't sent to the U.S. can still face several moves while at home.

“We're transferring babies across the province, in all directions, to try to find an extra bed for the next potential birth or for any baby already born,” Dr. Chessex said in a telephone interview from Vancouver. “We now have babies who have been transferred up to six times after leaving here before reaching home.”

For parents, the devastating news that their baby is sick due to a malformation, illness or being born prematurely is compounded by the reality that there simply is not a bed available for their infant close to home.

“Whenever a sick baby is born, it's really a disaster for these families because it was unexpected. And it just puts a terrible stress on them,” Dr. Chessex said. “If they are sent out of country at that moment, it is just unbelievable the kind of pressure that they must go under.”

No one knows that better than Jade Pascoe, of Cranbrook, B.C., who went into labour 15 weeks earlier than her due date. She gave birth on March 29, to Nevin James William Moore, who came into this world weighing 1 pound 10 ounces. “They tried to get me somewhere in Canada,” said Ms. Pascoe, 19. “But there was nowhere to send me.” The hospital where she gave birth does not have a NICU. And when no NICU bed could be located in B.C. or Alberta, her son was sent to a hospital in Spokane, located in eastern Washington.
​

A mid-sized city in WA has the spare neonatal capacity that can't be found anywhere in Canada.

Now keep in mind that whatever medical outcomes Canada is reporting exist in a situation where Canada can use spare capacity in the US. What would happen to these babies if there were no spare capacity in the the US?

Also note how they're pushing babies through neonatal units in order to open up room for the next preemie. Discharging the babies is done for administrative reasons rather than because babies are medically cleared.

 

[CowboyTed]

You might pay for a specialist here but you could have gone to the hospital and had your tests and xrays and not wasted that $120 you did.

Having tests presumes the presence of the equipment needed to conduct the tests.

The number of MRI and CT scanners is because the US system orders too many tests due to litigation. There are risks in taking MRI and CT scans too.

Risks of MRI scan

There is tons of information on taking too many tests...

 

[CowboyTed]

The US system is a piece of crap

Survival rates from Cancer:
Worldwide cancer mortality statistics Cancer Research UK

Culturally Europeans have not asked for tests in the past, they are catching up though... But this is just one indicator... Want to compare birth mortality rates?