Would you switch to Private Health Insurance?

[Kila]

Here is a question for those of you "Across the Pond" from the Yankee side. The question is for Canada too, for that matter. You may be aware that here in the US there is a VERY big deal in the news now about whether the Federal Government should nationalize health care. Currently, most people insure themselves & their families through their employer.

Last night on the news, an British gentleman was interviewed who is (or was) in Parliament or somehow involved in the politics of the British health care system (now I wish I had made note of his name). He said that you are not permitted to pay for ANY care not provided by the government lest you lose access to ALL government payment for care for that problem. This man stated that he believed that the majority of British people would pay for private health insurance if it were available and affordable.

So, my question is, is this true? Would you pay for private insurance if you could versus the government system? Here in the US, we hear horror stories on the news about the British and Canadian health care systems. I am making NO judgments, I am just curious to know if you would go private if you could as the gentleman suggested.

If you think your system works great, say that too. The news is always filtered by what point someone is trying to prove.

 

[Rich]

The so called British spokesman was almost certainly a scaremonger provided by American insurance companies scared of loosing their mega dollar profits. Private health insurance has been available here for years

 

[Kila]

Guaranteed. They always select the spokesperson who can scare the public most toward their views. Right now the American Public is getting scaremongers on ALL sides. Some are praising the British & Canadian Systems, and some are blasting them. I would say more are blasting them, probably b/c horror stories are MUCH more interesting to watch on the news than what's working right. Stirs up more public emotion.

Hence my question. I am curious about how much truth is (or is not) there. I am always skeptical of the "experts". The question is always, how much is exaggerated and what did they leave out? So....

1. If the health care system tells you that they will not pay for a procedure and you pay out of pocket for it, will they refuse to pay for any further care for that problem? Was that truth? Was it exaggerated?

2. It was suggested that only the rich could afford to accept the options in #1, especially for a chronic problem, like heart disease or kidney failure with ongoing mega expenses into perpetuity.

3. Further, it was suggested that what private insurance there is there is too expensive for most, and if utilized to replace what the gov't will not pay for, brings us back to #1 and #2... which are impractical financial options for the Average Joe.

4. And the original question, Do you think most people are happy with the system as it is. He gave some kind of figure, like 80% would switch, but I don't remember it being substatiated by any research (the validity of which might be questionable anyway).

 

[Alisa]

Actually, nationalizing healthcare is not and never has been on the table. Maybe health care reform wouldn't be so controversial if people took the time to understand the issue.

 

[statsman]

I'm old enough to remember when Medicare was first being introduced to the USA.

The insurance companies used the same scare tactics then.

Public healthcare is certainly not perfect, but its better than nothing, especially for those folks who currently have nothing.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

So, my question is, is this true? Would you pay for private insurance if you could versus the government system? Here in the US, we hear horror stories on the news about the British and Canadian health care systems. I am making NO judgments, I am just curious to know if you would go private if you could as the gentleman suggested.

As Rich says, private healthcare is available here (although I don't think it's possible to opt out of funding the NHS and rely solely on private health care - but that's probably at least partly because there is no private emergency healthcare).

But no. I consider healthcare to be an 'infrastructure' thing - like education, police and fire services - and should always be available based on need, not ability to pay.
As a taxpayer, I'm perfectly happy to fund the system in a way that provides the same level of care to me and to people who cannot pay - in exactly the same way as I am happy for my taxes to fund the fire brigade whether or not my house burns down more or less frequently than someone else's - and in the same way that I'm happy for children of unemployed parents to be educated to the same standard as my children.

We all put in what we can and we all take out what we need - and if the shoe was on the other foot, I'd be glad I was provided for.

It's not that different from an insurance-based model, really, it's just that everyone has to participate - it's insurance at a corporate, rather than individual level - and that is perfectly acceptable to me.

 

[oumahexi]

The so called British spokesman was almost certainly a scaremonger provided by American insurance companies scared of loosing their mega dollar profits. Private health insurance has been available here for years

Yes it has. But the fact remains that, if you live in the catchment area of a trust that does not provide a certain drug which is known to cure your ailment you are not allowed to purchase the drug privately and continue with your NHS treatment. As soon as you start down the road of paying to get yourself well again the NHS will penalise you for it. This has happened with the most horific consequences; people with cancer; Parkinsons and dementia to name but a few are left to die rather than be allowed to purchase life saving drugs that their trust does not authorise.

Would I switch to Private Health Insurance? At the drop of a hat! I've experienced both. A year ago I got sick, four months off work, several "exporatory operations" and numerous "failed medications" later they still don't have a diagnosis for me. Under private medical care I'd have been diagnosed within weeks and cured by now. I can't afford private medical care, so I've just given up. Point me in the direction of the nearest Shamen

 

[Kryst51]

That's kind of what I'm scared of too, if we switch to national health care, will I be able to get the treatment I need, or, will my grandparents in their 70s be able to get the treatment they need? Right now, I KNOW it's our choice, These things are always so convoluted, you think your getting one thing, when you failed to read the superfine print. or all of the attachments or ammendments. Later someone says, when we complain, "That's not what that sentence meant it really meant, blah blah blah." I kind of don't care about the money, I am a social services person so I don't mind making sure people have health care, especially children who are at no fault for not working etc. I am concerned about people not getting the care they need due to politics and beuracracy (not sure of the spelling).

 

[GaryPanic]

the stance of the NHS has now changed -- if you opted for a treatment that is not on the NHS - thats fine and they will continue to treat you in conjuction with your topped up treatment - however they want disclaimers signed incase their treatments effects the paid treatment (which seems fair)

 

[oumahexi]

the stance of the NHS has now changed -- if you opted for a treatment that is not on the NHS - thats fine and they will continue to treat you in conjuction with your topped up treatment - however they want disclaimers signed incase their treatments effects the paid treatment (which seems fair)

It does, seems very fair. I wonder what the Government are up to? I'm always very wary of a leopard that tries to change it's spots, and a caring Government sets off all sorts of alarm bells

 

[Alisa]

This whole conversation is completely beside the point. In the UK, the government employs doctors and owns hospitals. The government actually operates the health care system. This has never ever been proposed in the US. Ever. And I sincerely doubt that it ever would be. What is currently on the table are new regulations for the private insurance companies, and possibly a public INSURANCE option. Note: Public INSURANCE, not public care. No doctors will be employed by the government. No hospitals will be taken over by the government. This whole issue is a complete red herring. If you are curious about the British system, by all means, continue to investigate, but it has exactly zero bearing on the current health insurance reform going on in the US.

 

[Brianwarnock]

the stance of the NHS has now changed -- if you opted for a treatment that is not on the NHS - thats fine and they will continue to treat you in conjuction with your topped up treatment - however they want disclaimers signed incase their treatments effects the paid treatment (which seems fair)

This is an interesting post as I had not spotted this change, do you have a reference or can you suggest a search starting point?
Ta

Brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

One of the problems of private health provision in the UK is that it becomes prohibitely expensive as one ages, does that apply in the US?
What is the effect of long term illness?

I had my cataract ops done privately back in 1984 when the NHS would not touch me, I paid out of savings, but no way would I have been able to cope with my wife's 17 years of treatment for her cancer, one drug costs about £25,000 per year.

Brian

 

[Alisa]

One of the problems of private health provision in the UK is that it becomes prohibitely expensive as one ages, does that apply in the US?
What is the effect of long term illness?

I had my cataract ops done privately back in 1984 when the NHS would not touch me, I paid out of savings, but no way would I have been able to cope with my wife's 17 years of treatment for her cancer, one drug costs about £25,000 per year.

Brian

Yes, we have the same problem here, until you get to 65 at which point medicare kicks in (government funded health care). If you are sick, forget about getting private insurance unless you work for a large employer that provides benefits. Otherwise, they will simply refuse to insure you because of your "preexisting condition".

Ofcourse, if you really do get sick, even if you have insurance you will get screwed because either 1)what you have won't be covered under your policy and you will have to pay out of pocket anyway 2)your out of pocket expenses will be so expensive that you can't afford them and you will go into bankruptcy 3)the insurance company will use something called recision to retroactively UN-insure you, which means they keep all of the premiums you have paid, and provide $0 towards your care or 4)your employer will fire you and you will lose your job AND your insurance at the same time. If you happen to escape all of the above, go play the lottery, you WIN!

 

[oumahexi]

I think that's just the same for all insurances. No matter what, they will find a reason not to pay out.

We are fortunate, from what I hear the level of care in Scotland and Wales is far better than in England, which is awful, we all pay the same amount, I think, in NI contributions, we should all be treated equally, but equally better please, not equally bad.

 

[Rich]

I had my cataract ops done privately back in 1984 when the NHS would not touch me, Brian

You should have asked for a sex changeBri, it's higher on the list than treating people with real ailments

 

[GaryPanic]

A national health system - seems a good idea- but what if someone wanted a boob job - i think we can all agree that this should not be on the NHS unless due to health problems or reconstruction work ..

as to better care in scotland than england - it does depend upon where you live ..
let say you live in Brighton - there is a higher percentage of older people - thereforethe health services will be catered mor towards this age range- and if a remember correctly there was an issue in 2008 about a pregant woman who need specail treatment - but had to go to London as Brighton did have the faculities - which means there can never be a truely level health care system -

but as it goes the NHS is pretty good - i have never had any problems getting seen or having treatment - the buildings might be past there best - but good service (might not be the best - but value for money certainly ) - there are some who cannot get the treatments they want/need and this is a shame - but the tax payer will not pay for everything

 

[Brianwarnock]

Hi Gary
You did not respond to my post#12

Brian

 

[pono1]

What is the effect of long term illness?


Brian

Bankruptcy or long-term debt for those without healthcare coverage...

 

[oumahexi]

- but the tax payer will not pay for everything

I really should stop watching the One show, it just gets me riled up.

They had a segment last night about taking migrant workers out into the country. Our government is paying to take migrant workers for a day out in the country. It costs, aparently, £250 per person! Yet, some NHS Trusts are struggling to offer patients the vital care they need.

I do understand budgeting, I understand that the government distributes its money between different funds (and some of the above scheme is funded by the National Lottery), but I don't understand why the government doesn't prioritise.

If you were running your own money, you'd have to make the decision of what to do with it, do I buy a new car or just empty the ash tray in this one to save money to buy my kids some new shoes. Why does the government not see it that way? Don't piss the money away on useless schemes for people who's only disability is that they work away from home, look after your own first!