In a social healthcare system, it may not work out cheaper for the person or the country per capita, but under such a system whether you are rich or poor, in our out of work if you have the slightest feeling you are unwell you can go to the doctors without the serious concern as to whether you will be able to afford the treatment.
For the very poor I agree. But if your just 'a bit' poor and have a deductible of 2500 per year then you will be reluctant to go to the doctor because of the possible wasted money given the doctor in turn is motivated to make money through diagnosis and tests.
While I somewhat agree with you when it comes to deductibles, it is certainly not true that that all the people who receive these subsidies are "very poor". Thats about 30% of the population!
I stand corrected and very surprised! I thought it was only for absolute breadline cases that subsidies came in.
I *think* that hubby and I would be eligible for subsidies to our insurance - he won't apply, but that's neither here nor there - which I bring up because even at our income level, my deductible is only 350chf/yr, after which time we pay a percentage.
My father taught me long ago that it is much better to feel a bit of a pinch on the monthly premiums (we were discussing auto insurance at the time) than face being unable to pay the deductible in the event of something drastic. This practice has stood hubby and I in good stead as I've required the services of one hospital or another every year since I arrived.
It's a lot easier to trim this or that as you go than come up with 2500chf at ago!
Er, meanwhile, part of why I started the post was something I read from OP (I think that's where I saw it?) about the doctors here testing for "everything" before making a diagnosis and spending lots of time with each patient (and charging per time increment rather than per patient).
My experience - both personal and through my mother - in the US was that doctors made money per patient. This meant that the doctor's offices were typically packed full of people, you mostly spoke to a nurse / assistant and saw the doctor for about 5 minutes or so. If you're only going for a routine checkup, it wasn't such a big deal BUT if you were going for anything else, it was a bit of an issue. You spent more time in the waiting room with other people who were sick. You spent less time talking about all the things that were actually going on. The chances of coming home with something you didn't have to begin with were higher AND the chances of not being properly diagnosed were also higher.
I'm not meaning to say the doctors are bad, they're not, a lot are simply fantastic... they just have less time.
On the other hand, my doctor here reminds me of my DO in the US in that they check you out totally instead of simply relying upon the symptoms which you show or mention. Yes, this takes time BUT I've also gotten "better" results from whatever medicines and therapies have been prescribed here than from my MD in the US.
A possible explanation is that the canton of Vaud has one of the most restrictive regulations and therefore the percentage of people receiving subsidies is considerably lower (but still about 20%).
The facts about 'poor' people in the Swiss system are:
"The insured pays the insurance premium for the basic plan up to 8% of their personal income. If a premium is higher than this, then the government gives the insured a cash subsidy to pay for any additional premium."
Where the NHS is concerned, it is apparently impossible to have an objective discussion about it. As the blog piece stated, (see my earlier post for link), it is akin to having a discussion about religion.
In my view, the perception many Brits have of the NHS is that it is a quasi-charitable organisation, when the facts are that it isn't and that is costs about the same as all the (better in most cases) alternatives.