Split off discussion of differences in healthcare systems

[Storker]

If you use the health service to enforce immigration policy and refuse treatment you will kill people.

And some polis seem to see that rather as a feature than as a bug

 

[KenGordon]

Just a lower tax burden. Which is what matters to me.

Given the US spends more tax money per person than the UK (for example) on health care as it stands, maybe a completely tax funded, universal system would actually cut your taxes. And that is before considering the other impacts in the wider economy like lost productivity and so reduced tax take from having a less healthy work force.

 

[KenGordon]

And some polis seem to see that rather as a feature than as a bug

It absolutely is a feature.

This is the same Home Secretary who wouldn't let a child victim of grooming back into the country and so her new born baby died.

I think that means he will be Prime Minister by the end of the year.

 

[RainPilot]

I have read those stories too. So far I have not seen it happen. There is no doubt that people declare bankruptcy to avoid paying medical bills.

A very good friend of my wife's ran out of cancer treatment on her insurance. She had to decide whether to continue with the treatment and chose not to, since there was a small chance of recovery and a 100% chance that she would be leaving her husband to deal with the bills and the raising and college costs of her son. She chose not to continue.

There are MANY stories like this.

 

[chillyinCanada]

A very good friend of my wife's ran out of cancer treatment on her insurance. She had to decide whether to continue with the treatment and chose not to, since there was a small chance of recovery and a 100% chance that she would be leaving her husband to deal with the bills and the raising and college costs of her son. She chose not to continue.

There are MANY stories like this.

Too many.

 

[taimen]

A very good friend of my wife's ran out of cancer treatment on her insurance. She had to decide whether to continue with the treatment and chose not to, since there was a small chance of recovery and a 100% chance that she would be leaving her husband to deal with the bills and the raising and college costs of her son.

Often the treatments in these stories are expensive advanced treatments which are never even started in public healthcare systems due to their cost and lack of evidence.

 

[Storker]

Often the treatments in these stories are expensive advanced treatments which are never even started in public healthcare systems due to their cost and lack of evidence.

I'd like to see a cite for that.

 

[RainPilot]

Often the treatments in these stories are expensive advanced treatments which are never even started in public healthcare systems due to their cost and lack of evidence.

That may be, but her treatment was standard chemotherapy/radiation which AFAIK is not considered "advanced" and has some evidence associated. She went for two rounds and was then informed that the 3rd round would cost her 200k USD and how would she like to pay for that, please?

 

[taimen]

I'd like to see a cite for that.

For example modern immunotherapies for cancer are typically expensive and can easily drain insurance. But depending on insurance policies they may not be covered at all in advanced disease if certain criteria are not met. And in this case patients often blame the insurance company for refusing treatment. The same therapies are often very scarsely if at all used by public healthcare systems (due to high cost and limited evidence, probably for a good reason).
Now from the patient viewpoint, a refused treatment is a refused treatment. I am not suggesting that everybody should be treated with immunotherapies until the end. But in this case, both the indication to treat or not to treat can be medically sound.
In my country we are seeing a flux of well off patients going to private cancer treatments after public healthcare has stopped their therapies. Or going to private to get those treatments for cancers where i.e. immunotherapy is not used at all by the public healthcare. All these cases could blame the greed of their insurance company for refusing treatments if they were in an insurance based system.

 

[Storker]

For example modern immunotherapies for cancer are typically expensive and can easily drain insurance. But depending on insurance policies they may not be covered at all in advanced disease if certain criteria are not met. And in this case patients often blame the insurance company for refusing treatment. The same therapies are often very scarsely if at all used by public healthcare systems (due to high cost and limited evidence, probably for a good reason).
Now from the patient viewpoint, a refused treatment is a refused treatment. I am not suggesting that everybody should be treated with immunotherapies until the end. But in this case, both the indication to treat or not to treat can be medically sound.
In my country we are seeing a flux of well off patients going to private cancer treatments after public healthcare has stopped their therapies. Or going to private to get those treatments for cancers where i.e. immunotherapy is not used at all by the public healthcare. All these cases could blame the greed of their insurance company for refusing treatments if they were in an insurance based system.

That's not a cite, that's more undocumented claims.

I'm still waiting for a cite showing that

Often the treatments in these stories are expensive advanced treatments which are never even started in public healthcare systems due to their cost and lack of evidence.

If you can't document your claim, it's just that. A claim. Without substance.