[xs83]

I am from 2 countries with "Free" healthcare system, I know that in either country if I really required it I would be seen, treated and discharged with no more than a few payments needed for medically necessary prescription medicines if I have a job, If I dont those are also covered.

In both countries - I can CHOOSE to go private for whatever reasons (for example, one of my friends has just had a baby and she chose to go private so she could get the OBGYN that she wanted and have a planned caesarian).

But it is not necessary and for those who cant afford private healthcare (or those who dont want to take it out) that safety net exists.

The foolproof solution (if such a thing could ever exist) - is to not have a healthcare system that is built for-profit. That way the government is the largest bargainer, you dont have companies colluding to drive up prices, everyone know what they are going to get and can't try and sway it that way.

By it coming from taxes the prices are managed better than if you have a bunch of cough self regulating companies running the racket.

I understand the pros and cons very well - and even with my private healthcare I get the benefits of the service I pay for with my taxes so my bill would never even be 10% of that 800k you somehow have paid.

[loceng]

So which countries are those? So I can lookup their health system structures.

In Canada, I can't privately pay a doctor for care - their hands are tied; dentists/dental-jaw aren't included - because dental isn't covered - somehow the teeth and jaw, and related tissues, aren't part of the body.

And you're making lots of assumptions - but no point in addressing those, but I'm curious what some of the pros and cons are? More specifically the cons; usually people haven't thought too deep to extrapolate to the consequences of either the pros or cons.

It's quite clear there's a large disconnect between people who likely had relatively simple health issues needing to be diagnosed and treated vs. others with more complex issues; of course the quality-competence of doctors you encounter is going to be the primary fundamental factors - which in part has to do with their training, their environment of if they are around other competent-knowledgable doctors - which then includes their education, how much they excel at memorization rather than critical thinking and observation skills.

I'm also curious if you ever played any rough sports or been in any serious collisions/accidents, or have you never really had any significant or complex injuries?

[xs83]

UK and Australia.

The pros and cons are the same pros and cons you get with any system that has some form of centralised control.

The main one comes down to triage, if you need / want a procedure that isnt life threatening or helps your quality of life you can expect a long wait or not being able to get it. For example - any kind of cosmetic surgery isnt going to be done for free unless it affects your quality of life (e.g. Rhinoplasty for deviated septum)

If your situation is an emergency you get seen pretty quickly - otherwise it can take a while - as an example my mother needed a knee replacement - it took almost a year from when the doctor recognised the need for her to actually have it done. But it got done and didnt cost a penny.

She could have gone private, had it done the following week and paid 5-6 figures for it - it just wasnt that urgent and she couldnt afford it.

I have played rough sports and been hospitalised from it and I was treated immediately (emergency) - again this was free.

I think this concept is lost on people - not everything medical needs to done immediately and its sometimes fine to wait (even if its not preferred).

[loceng]

Thanks for sharing.

There are blind spots regarding problems that you're unaware of since you haven't experienced them.

Glad your and your mother's situations were simple enough for a relatively quick resolution.

I wonder if your mother could have benefit more from a stem cell treatment, but that perhaps only a knee replacement was covered - even if the knee replacement would have cost the system more money overall.

[_heimdall]

> The foolproof solution (if such a thing could ever exist) - is to not have a healthcare system that is built for-profit.

Well we 100% agree here. The system you describe sounds totally reasonable to me as long as the government is managing things reasonably.

I'd extend this problem to effectively every industry too. Profit is such a corrupting factor in any business and really ruins most things. Free markets, capitalism, whatever I get all of that but creating incentives entirely around winning a zero sum game is terrible for everyone in the long run.

[loceng]

Re: "... as long as the government is managing things reasonably."

Bingo!

The issue is, especially in Canada, which people don't seem to know is a "free" healthcare system structured fundamentally differently than the other more successful systems.

The primary issues I believe are rigid centralization - along with nepotism, and the single point of failure-capture that is then possible in a highly controlled-centralized system, where the people - the voters - get no say; e.g. when the health system doesn't have elected administrators.

In the US, I believe most states and cities, judges and police captains are elected? In Canada, we don't have that even.

There are pros and cons to "both" systems, and there are solutions to better select for the pros in both.