50 days to see a doctor in Boston…Is universal coverage the cause?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Last time I needed a doctor, I called it in the morning and was received in the afternoon, same for my bro and an other doctor, and it used to be this way until now for people I know. And you might have seen that I live in France, which has a universal medical coverage.

Maybe it's a bit more time for dentists, but not that much, maybe 2 or 3 days to wait, except emergences. For specialists like ophthalmologist it can be way longer, but here it is due to the fact that not enough students choose such or such specialized field of medicine, so it misses some doctors in such or such field of medicine.

I recently saw a report in which an NGO gave some care in general medicine and for teeth, for a lot of people who didn't have money, and who came there to benefit of some medical care. The NGO gathered them in a gymnasium, and a long queue was waiting, each one its turn. This happened in the US, nowadays. That may be what you prefer...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

No.

As you know I'm a UK resident. I felt unwell last night so I wanted to see a doctor and I did at 11am the next morning after booking an appointment at 8.30 am. Cost me nothing, bar a $6.50 flat fee for a prescription afterwards.

So many people knock such a system without knowing the slightest thing about it.

Oh no, they know everything they need to know about it - it reduces the massive income of the health care mafia, and it wastes resources on sick poors.

Mouhahaah. Is that ironical?

What a cool mafia, a mafia that give money and care to the people...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

The raw ideology on this board is mind boggling.

The facts are that wait times are not just a little longer but significantly longer in Britain than in the US and survival rates for cancer patients are much lower.  That anyone would deny this at this stage suggests a total immunity to evidence.

If you open a world map of health care, you might find other states than US and UK. Among the other ones, you might find the Scandinavian ones and France. Maybe you should have a look. France uses to consider the UK cover as not being an example at all.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

The raw ideology on this board is mind boggling.

The facts are that wait times are not just a little longer but significantly longer in Britain than in the US and survival rates for cancer patients are much lower.  That anyone would deny this at this stage suggests a total immunity to evidence.

If you open a world map of health care, you might find other states than US and UK. Among the other ones, you might find the Scandinavian ones and France. Maybe you should have a look. France uses to consider the UK cover as not being an example at all.

The WHO rates the US quality of care as better than the French or Scandanavian systems, btw.

For those who have access to it, absolutely.

I don't especially know of it, I just know that in France you can be offered for low costs some very good high and last technologies to diagnose and to treat you. But, anyways, yes, if we take in count the number of people who can access to high quality cares here for low costs, if we take both criteria in count, then the classification of health cover won't be the same.

It's a choice, or you just care of the quality, or you care of the quality and of the quantity that you can give. Free to you to chose, but personally I'd rather live in a society which take care of the most important in life >>> health.