this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024
1544 points (98.2% liked)
Microblog Memes
8163 readers
2686 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's not often discussed but as waiting lists can be long for free at point of use health care, most big companies offer private healthcare for employees that costs ~£50 per month.
I find that a very good deal.
Waiting lists are long over here in the US too, depending on the specialty and region. We're simply overpaying for the same quality healthcare while still failing to get 100% coverage.
This is incorrect.
We are overpaying for lower quality healthcare.
We have worse outcomes than countries with free healthcare.
As my father used to say "it may be bad, but it's expensive."
"You can find better quality but you can't pay more". Is the phrasing I heard.
I'd have to look at the most recent numbers, but the usual addage is that rich countries (US included) all have roughly the same overall quality of care, but they each have areas they're particularly good or bad in. We're particularly bad at maternal and neonatal care, but we're quite good at cancer. It's been a while since I've dived into the numbers, though.
Yes the exception is places like Massachusetts, which has some of the best quality healthcare in the world. But, you guessed it, they have a universal healthcare system similar to Germany.
My doctor just moved and became one of those. I'm very mad at her for leaving cus she's freaking awesome.
My son's pediatrician operates her practice in a "direct primary care" model, which is sort of concierge-light with a significantly lower monthly fee. There are some catches, and it doesn't replace proper insurance so I'm still paying for that on top of the monthly office fee. But on the other hand, our appointments aren't a rush-job where we get like five minutes of face-time with the pediatrician and then shuttled out the door, and we can message her any time of the day to ask "yo what's this rash" and usually get an answer (and occasionally a script for an ointment) within a half-hour, without having to go through the rigamarole of trying to get an appointment that's usually so far out you're better off waiting and hoping the problem resolves itself.
Is this the UK? As (company) private schemes in the UK allow you to jump the queue, pushing people who cant or wont pay further back down the queue.
Its also significantly cheaper than the actual cost of a fully privatised solution because its subsidised by the NHS.
Majority of Doctors and Nurses who do private work spend the bulk of their working week for the NHS, and a large percentage of them were trained by the NHS.
Do I blame people who go private because they do not want to wait? No, but its also not a good argument for further privatisation as further expansion of this system reduces capacity of the NHS.
Yes, UK.
I'm against further privatisation as the competition it was meant to create just led to inefficiency. Example: public health providers now hire sales staff to win them contacts. Also data sharing became difficult between areas.