Quote:
Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce
No, I can't. It's all anecdotal.
We moved to US 2.5 years ago.p
Our co-pay is $25 per visit, whether that is to specialist or GP, including immediate care. Emergency care is $100/visit,unless admitted to hospital, then is no charge.
I have seen a derm and an orthopedist, as specialists, in our time here.my wait time to see specialist in both cases was less 48 hours.
My wife had breast cancer in Canada. No complaints with the care for her treatment there, but because she was so young, and we have a daughter, they put her on list for genetic testing for BRCA. She was on that list for 1.5 years in Montreal. Here, upon initial consultation with oncologist, they also recommended genetic testing, and apologized because the delay for testing was 10 days.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobbles
Here's something anecdotal to see how y'all feel U.S. coverage is compared to you guys:
A couple weeks ago my 5 year old needed tubes in his ears and they took out his adenoids. It was an outpatient procedure that did require anesthesia. We were at the hospital for probably 3 hours total.
The bill? Just over $20,000. After insurance, we were left with a $3,000 bill from the hospital. We also received a bill for ~$400 for the anesthesiologist. Not sure if we have seen any other charges, would have to look in the pile.
My kids are under my wife's insurance through her work. I think its Blue Cross Blue Shield.
Luckily we are well enough off to be able to take a hit like that without much problem. But for a lot of people, bills like that are what start the spiral. So the choice is let your kid go through grade school with hearing problems (mine failed his hearing tests) or go broke.
|
Here's the thing about this anecdotal evidence. Both are likely accurate based on the situation of the individuals in question.
One individual lives in the 3rd largest metropolitan area in the nation, and is fairly affluent, based on their commentary. It is very likely they have a really good job, get paid a lot, and have a benefits package that most would consider gold plated or Rolls Royce. So they have an advantage of having low deductibles and excellent access. Being in the 3rd largest metro area has its advantages as well. Chicago has 91 hospitals in a 20 mile radius of the center of the city. Illinois is also a very liberal state where there are a huge number of insurance programs available. There is a high density of good service providers and specialists. You have a high degree of choice and your plan likely allows a high degree of choice between service providers, including specialists.
The other individual lives in the 47th largest metropolitan area in the country. Population density is a fraction and access to providers is obviously going to be restricted. Tulsa has access to 29 hospitals within a 50 mile radius of city center. This individual is not affluent and more of a member of that shrinking middle class. It is likely the individual does not have a high paying job, is limited on benefits, and has to make due with those benefits provided by employer. Oklahoma is a state which fought the idea of health exchanges and has very limited choice in the system for those who have to buy from that marketplace. The majority of these programs have high deductibles to keep insurance costs down and pass a lot of the costs off to the insured. Depending on where the individual lives in Tulsa, they could be subject to "rural medicine" classification, making access to services extremely difficult.
Context of this issue is important. Listening to someone who has fantastic insurance and lives in the middle of a large urban area can give the impression of everything being rainbows and unicorns. Listening to someone who lives in a smaller population center and lives paycheck to paycheck, the picture is very different. Both can be right, but it is the contrast that shows you everything that is wrong with the system itself.