whether the insurance is coming from a single payer or a private company, access to health care does not mean unrestricted access to any medical procedure you want. Private insurers also deny treatments that aren't considered to be cost effective.
>You can't pick your own doctor
I already can't. If they're in network, I'm good, but if they're out of network - like my doctor was - then I have to find a new one.
>You can't pick your treatments
My spouse was denied medication by an insurance company because it was too new. So.
>You don't get to have all the healthcare you want
I already have to have pre-approval for anything up to and including emergency surgery according to my annual medical contract. So that's out the window, too.
And I have good insurance through a respectable company who may or may not have a name that rhymes with smue-smoss smue-smield.
Not sure what other arguments there are.
The one I've heard the most lately is that "people like their existing insurance companies", which I think is an almost absurd thing to say on its face. But its probably just a way to say "people don't like change" that doesn't get insurance companies or "people" salty about it.
I've never heard any normal citizen say that. I was mostly commenting on current politicians saying that to justify their stances. For example:
"One hundred sixty million people like their private insurance" - Joe Biden, Nov 21 2019
"You don't start out by saying I've got 160 million people I'm going to take away the insurance plan that they love." - Michael Bloomberg, Feb 19 2020
etc
My worst interaction with an insurance company in my entire adult life was being billed in an annoying fashion and having to sit on hold for half an hour to get it fixed. Compared to just my last trip to the DMV the insurance company is already pretty far ahead.
For completeness sake, I'm actually not particularly opposed to re-working the healthcare system. While I lean strongly libertarian, I'm pragmatic enough to understand the current half commie, half free market health care system is entirely untenable, and I seriously doubt it will be acceptable to move in the free market direction anytime soon.
I think I'd suggest that you ask around your social circle to see if you're the outlier or the standard with your experience. Particularly if you've never had a major unplanned life event that resulted in a large medical bill.
I feel like, at least for me, I'd rather have a system that has a constant amount of low grade frustration in it; instead of a system that is smooth sailing while you're healthy and paying, but will throw you under the bus when you actually need them.
> My worst interaction with an insurance company in my entire adult life was being billed in an annoying fashion and having to sit on hold for half an hour to get it fixed. Compared to just my last trip to the DMV the insurance company is already pretty far ahead.
My worst interaction was watching a family member of mine begin to actively die and then pass away a few months after insurance decided to stop covering their primary medication - which was literally keeping their disease at bay, keeping them alive. It was too expensive to cover without the insurance.
> While I lean strongly libertarian, I'm pragmatic enough to understand the current half commie, half free market health care system is entirely untenable, and I seriously doubt it will be acceptable to move in the free market direction anytime soon.
I'm actually shocked that more libertarians don't take this view. Healthcare is almost by definition not a free market and never will be. You can't make a rational purchasing decision when both parties know the possible outcome of not buying is your literal death (amongst other similar reasons). It's an outlier in the business space that needs special considerations (IMO).
i'm curious what story you're referring to. The two that were in the news recently were Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans, but neither of those were heart conditions and neither were easily fixable. They were denied access to treatments that most medical experts agreed would not be effective.
It highly depends on the situation.
If you're trying to see your family doctor for something routine or non-urgent, yes, it can take a few weeks to get an appointment, as they tend to be booked up.
If you have a non-critical issue that needs to be taken care of sooner (eg, an ear infection), many practices run an "urgent care" or "after hours" clinic, and there are also dedicated offices (often co-located with a pharmacy) that do the same. I'm not sure how exactly these work, but they don't cost anything, and you can generally get in within minutes to hours, depending on your situation and how busy they are.
If you are in need of emergency care, you go to the ER (and/or call an ambulance), and get triaged. If you are having a heart attack, for example, you will get treatment immediately, but for lesser problems you can sometimes wait several hours. This is also the one case where the system can actually cost you money of-out-pocket, because if you're waiting that long you'll probably want to buy something to eat.
But in England if you need same day medical care you call 111 to talk to a healthcare professional, or you walk into your nearest pharmacy to talk to the pharmacist, or you visit your local walk-in medical centre to see a GP, or if it's something a GP can see as an emergency you call your GP and make an emergency appointment.
If it's more serious you visit your local MIIU (minor injuries and illness unit), or UTC (urgent treatment centre) or A&E, or you call 999 or 112 for an ambo.
> but there was that kid in the UK with an easily fixable, but fatal, heart condition
Do you know the name of the child? Because every single time someone mentions one of these cases they're going by information they've read in US media, and the details are always wrong.
But your "bandwidth" analogy seems confused. What is "bandwidth" here? Because lots of American medical professionals seem to insist they spend a lot of effort on things that aren't healthcare - things which are unnecessary in single payer systems. If the US redirects all this healthcare "bandwidth" to actually delivering healthcare, that's a bunch of extra healthcare delivered, not just re-organizing who gets access.