You can have good public healthcare without the need of the notion of 'claims'. The Scandinavian healthcare system is a good example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Denmark).
You may experience more pain compared to some other healthcare systems. Like France from my experience and probably USA from what I read.
I had some unforgettable experiences in Norway, such as a colonoscopy without sedation or anaesthesia in case I can tolerate the pain. I didn’t after a while.
Or some little operation that according to the English Wikipedia is done under general anaesthesia in USA. The doctor in my local small emergency room simply told me that the needle for a local anesthesia would be as painful as the operation so it’s unnecessary. She then asked a large nurse to hold me and I was given instructions about how to breathe. I think the doctor may have lied about the pain.
But I pay between $20 and $40 per visit and I don’t have to pay if it accumulates more than $300 per year. It’s also not connected to my work, I can be fired and still have the same healthcare benefits, forever.
What pain? I have had a colonoscopy without any sedation, also in Norway. It was uncomfortable, occasionally very, but I wouldn't have called it painful. I think you must have encountered an incompetent doctor.
Can't imagine why you would want general anaesthesia unless it was strictly necessary as it gives an additional risk of dying.
That said, I had a colonoscopy with alprazolam and fentanyl, and it was, if anything, a moderately enjoyable experience. There was the odd slightly painful moment as they went round corners, but the drugs made me feel great throughout and I walked home afterwards with a mild afterglow.
However, while I personally certainly wouldn't have requested general anaesthesia, I think it should be down to patient choice. I'm from the UK, and we often take a clench your teeth and bear it attitude to patient suffering, which I think can often be borderline inhumane. Ultimately if a patient wants to accept a 0.001% chance of dying to avoid experiencing pain or discomfort, mental or physical, that is up to them. You also have to consider the second order effects of people avoiding treatment due to fear of pain, as well as people who may have been raped or otherwise have very valid reasons to not want to experience having something inserted into their rectum.
This process obviously does nothing to alleviate any medical issue, so you come back a few weeks later. You pay your $20. New doctor this time, who asks what meds you are on, takes your blood pressure and orders the same tests.
Obviously testing the same thing a second time didn't further the investigation. So you go back. You pay your $20. Yet another doctor this time, who asks what meds you are on, takes your blood pressure and orders the same goddamn tests.
Rinse and repeat. I've had like five of these contacts the last few years. Starting to look like a heroin junkie from all the blood samples. I've never learned of any test results. Just keep taking the same tests over and over. There is just zero continuity.
In fact, most developed nations do. But part of what makes it so difficult to have a productive conversation about healthcare is that everyone has experience with the system in every single country, and bad experiences get passed around. So we say X country is doing better, and someone chimes in explaining how that country has its flaws.
They all have their flaws. But the US health system is measurably worse than most other developed nations across most axes that we care about. Though there are interesting questions about how much worse per-capita healthcare spend actually is given the comparatively higher R&D investment in the US.
The point is that, however, you can pick almost any objective health measure and see a similar result. So either all of the measurements are wrong in favor of other nations, or there's a clear problem here.
I think the bigger challenge here is that health in a nation is about much more than just care delivery services. The nations that do better than the US also tend to have significantly greater, and more accessible, social services to the population. Lower income households will have access to higher quality foods, for example. Healthcare services can be rendered even to those who are not actively employed. etc.
Effectively, the US will need to decide if it cares about the health and well being of its population. If it does, we have just about one of the worst ways in modern society to accomplish it. Our method is more expensive, less enjoyable, and has worse outcomes.
That's odd. Here in Norway I can always see the doctor with whom I am registered. Very occasionally I'll accept seeing a different doctor in the same practice because that can mean getting an appointment sooner.
I think you should complain to someone because you are clearly getting substandard care.
The one benefit (I guess) of universal coverage is that doctors already know the unapproved medicines won't get paid for, so they never try. So you avoid the whole issue of rejections. They just go with whatever the system says it will pay for.
So the exact opposite of what people usually mean when they say they want public healthcare.
Words mean something.
Many public health care systems aren't entirely centralized, even though they use public funds. For example even the UK's NHS has regions with allocated budgets they manage based on the number of patients they see, which they then spend as they see fit.
You're trying to attach your biases and assumptions onto an amorphous phrase, and then pretend others are using it wrong because they don't have the same expectations. That isn't reasonable.