I honestly find this baffling that there is a "limit" on how much treatment you can have done based on an arbitrary $ cost.
Australia generally has great "free" healthcare but even then it is complicated with rebates and gaps etc, its not completely "free" but there isn't exactly a limit on what you can have done under Medicare. If you have private medical insurance (an option not a requirement) then you can get a nicer hospital and not pay for the extra requirements.
In the UK you just get fixed and never see a bill in your life - everyones tax pays for it. Again not exactly "free" but you don't "pay" for it. Again, if you have private you can get a better hospital, choose your doctor etc.
The way I see it the US could 'have its cake and eat it' but there is significant opposition to anything that seems "Socialist" because the moguls who run these private health insurance companies are making too much money to change the system.
No, the Australian medicare system is not remotely close to being great. When a simple CT scan/MRI can take 4 months waiting time [1], I wouldn't jump up and defend such a failed system. It is not great, it is the complete opposite of that. Ever tried to do some dentals using that "free" healthcare you mentioned or ever tried 12-18 months elective surgery waiting time?
OK, so this is Australia's system (from patient's perspective). I'm a T2 diabetic, obese, 55, have had one heart attack, angiogram/stent, second angiogram, quad bypass:
0. Everyone pays a 1.5% "extra" tax for Medicare, but that's actually just a cover. The actual cost to government is much higher, but is paid out of general revenue.
1. GPs and specialists are reimbursed by the government at a govt decided rate for different procedures.
2. The GPs/specialists can "bulk bill" in which case patients don't pay, or there is a "gap" that has to be paid by the patient. The gap cannot be covered by insurance (by law).
3. Medicines that are approved by an independent body are subsidized on the Pharmaceutical Benefits System (PBS). Once on that list (and most meds are), the cost to the patient is $35 for a prescription, subsidized to $6 for those on welfare. My meds (statin, beta blocker, ACE inhibitor, metformin etc) cost me about $100/month.
4. Public hospitals are free at point of use by patients. This includes all ER, surgery etc. However, because this is a limited resource, there are waiting lists for different procedures, managed based on urgency. If I'd gone to a public hospital ER for my heart attack, the treatment would have been as quick and as good as what I got when I went to a private hospital ER. Oh, except that the private ER cost me $400.
5. Private insurance is available. For me, the insurance costs $300/month (ie, $3600 pa). This allows me to use private hospitals within a wide network (with a $400/per admittance excess), ancilliary benefits like optical ($200 pa) etc. It also allows me the choice of specialist/surgeons in hospital and things like private rooms.
It may not be "great", but compared to the US it's much much better. There are no/zero/nada cases of "medical bankruptcy" here. ER costs are not in the thousands, bills aren't ridiculous, my entire treatment regime over 2 years and 2 admittals to hospital cost me less than $10K because I chose my cardiologist and surgeon. If I'd gone "public", the cost would have been $0.
Our public hospitals are the "teaching hospitals" and our medical research and results are world leading. Our GPs are primarily focussed on care and patient outcomes, they now spend a lot of time as case managers, for example, my T2 care plan is managed by my GP but involves a dietician, an endocrenologist etc.
Great write up! I do find the Australian system a bit confusing but that is basically because on the NHS in the UK there are literally no "costs" other than prescription costs. It seems a much simpler way but as you can see there the gubberment doesn't like this because they can't make money off it.
I am very happy with the healthcare in Australia so far (I haven't had to use it much thankfully) and like the NHS there will always be waiting times for non urgent surgeries - I think most people would prefer than than a 6 figure bill (which they can also choose to have if they go private)...
Dental and optical are two areas that Medicare punts on, and yeah, they are expensive and suck. That seems like a testimony for the rest of the system rather than a damning.
I don't know if you can hold up that 2GB article as anything conclusive. The plural of anecdotes not being data and all that.
I've lived under the UK, AU and US systems. Ours isn't the best, but fuck living under the nightmare that is healthcare in the US.
Australia generally has great "free" healthcare but even then it is complicated with rebates and gaps etc, its not completely "free" but there isn't exactly a limit on what you can have done under Medicare. If you have private medical insurance (an option not a requirement) then you can get a nicer hospital and not pay for the extra requirements.
In the UK you just get fixed and never see a bill in your life - everyones tax pays for it. Again not exactly "free" but you don't "pay" for it. Again, if you have private you can get a better hospital, choose your doctor etc.
The way I see it the US could 'have its cake and eat it' but there is significant opposition to anything that seems "Socialist" because the moguls who run these private health insurance companies are making too much money to change the system.