Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by some_account 2892 days ago
>> In the US, employment status and your employer determine your access to health-care

I have spotted the problem.

As usual, America wins the absurdity trophy.

2 comments

This passage made me appreciate germanys health care. You can think of germany whatever you want, but the easy access to health care is super glorious. I think a lot of people that live here are not aware of it, because it just happens to be there and they don't have to think about it. The past 2 1/2 years i had to go to so many doctors and I was just happy to live in a country with absolutely beautiful healthcare. But maybe it is bad how the german health system works and I just have been lucky. It's possible, but I don't think so.
Isn’t it case in most of the world, including many EU countries? Please don’t bring up the “free” healthcare, unviersal healthcare can really mistreat one for whom contributions are not paid.
Wait, what? Where else in the developed world do you lose access to basic health care (or, well, it'll bankrupt you and you'll be in shit for the rest of your life, same same) simply by losing a job? Do you really think that that is the case in most EU countries too?
It's not the case at all in most, if not all, EU countries.

You have access to healthcare for small fees, and you'll generally get better care than in the private sector; you'll just have to wait longer if it's not urgent.

I know for a fact that in at least two EU capitals private hospitals often forward patients they are unable to handle (e.g. complicated births) to public hospitals, who are more skilled and experienced.

> private hospitals often forward patients they are unable to handle (e.g. complicated births) to public hospitals, who are more skilled and experienced.

In India, this happens simply because private hospitals don't want mortalities on their hands. Complicated cases often mean higher chances of things going wrong. Best let the public hospitals handle it.

>unviersal healthcare can really mistreat one for whom contributions are not paid

The point is that there are no contributions, well taxes, but that doesn't go towards the individual but the health services as a whole.

Stil, your employer can buy you "better" (or at least quicker) access to private alternatives, but I don't think that's what you meant.

Based on the content of your comment, I can tell you with certainty you don't know what you are talking about. Do some actual research before you make outlandish (and wrong) claims please.
Specific comparisons would make your comment more interesting.