12 ms·

Universal healthcare does not mean "free healthcare". What it means is that all people have equal access to healthcare, the kind that would otherwise be provide

Universal healthcare does not mean "free healthcare". What it means is that all people have equal access to healthcare, the kind that would otherwise be provided by everyone having private healthcare insurance, such as what would need to happen in the US. The intent is that this would be more affordable for the average person than not having a universal healthcare system. Of course, affordability is not a guarantee for all treatments, regardless of which healthcare system you agree with. It seems this is the problem for the Kim family. Even in a universal healthcare system, things like chemotherapy and cancer surgery might still cost too much for people who earn below living-wage.

ALittleLight 7y ago
How is it universal care if some people can't get care because they can't afford it? By that logic the US has universal care - any legal treatment your doctor wants to give you and you can afford it, anyone can get.
- dba7dba 7y ago
  Below blog posting is old but one of the best info available in English on the Korean Healthcare system. http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2010/01/healthcare-system-in-korea.html http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2010/01/healthcare-system-in-... Some may consider the fact that Korean national health insurance only covers around 55 percent of the total healthcare cost to be problematic. This may be true if one takes the idea of guaranteed socialized medicine seriously. But for fiscal conservatives with some measure of compassion for the plight of the uninsured, this could be an attractive balance. While corruption is definitely still a problem with Korean government, the NHIC is surprisingly efficient and well-run. It does a great job squeezing out maximum value out of the tax it receives.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- zpallin 7y ago
  Universal Healthcare does not guarantee affordability, only access. You must be thinking of "Free Universal Healthcare". And no, the US does not have it. You can be denied insurance and you won't be able to see most doctors because of it. Some ERs won't even treat you without insurance, especially if it's an expensive procedure.
  - justicezyx 7y ago
    > Universal Healthcare does not guarantee affordability I think we have a word for that: affordable health care. Universal Healthcare necessarily covers affordability: """Universal health care is a system that provides quality medical services to all citizens. The federal government offers it to everyone regardless of their ability to pay. """ -- From https://www.thebalance.com/universal-health-care-4156211 https://www.thebalance.com/universal-health-care-4156211
    - zpallin 7y ago
      Except your quote is exactly what I am saying. And just because universal healthcare is "provided to everyone regardless of their ability to pay", it doesn't mean that they'll always be able to pay it. Because even if costs are "affordable" over all, it doesn't guarantee that everyone, including the Kim family in 'Parasite' would be able to afford more expensive treatments without selling their home for 30k.
anonsivalley652 7y ago
I'm sorry but that's wrong because that's trying to twist the meaning of words. No money, no healthcare isn't universal obviously. With no single-payer, government-funded, healthcare system, only doctors and patients who have to pay for everything themselves, that is in no way "universal healthcare." The problem with charging poor people for healthcare is that they get sicker and sicker and then need emergency care, and that's more expensive than giving them free healthcare in the beginning. It's unethical and classist to pick-and-choose who gets life-saving cancer treatment based on their income. Doctors with integrity would be abhorred at being presented with such a decision because it goes against the fundamental values of their profession.
- unishark 7y ago
  > It's unethical and classist to pick-and-choose who gets life-saving cancer treatment based on their income. Since we're talking ethics, do you also think universal healthcare should be provided by wealthy nations to all the world? Otherwise we are just picking and choosing based on where someone happens to be born, aren't we?
  - kevingadd 7y ago
    That question doesn't matter because national sovereignty would prevent other countries from doing that even if they wanted to. It's not a program it's even possible to consider without some really elaborate treaties that many countries would reject. At the core of it what you're basically arguing is that nations are unethical because what citizenship someone holds influences things like their access to health care, and the solution to that would probably look a lot like the EU but completely borderless world-wide (with no immigrations or customs departments?) I think you know how people would react to that. It's a pointless 'gotcha' question
    - unishark 7y ago
      The logistics don't seem difficult at all to me if there's a will. People tend to be pretty accommodating when it comes to letting you give them money. At the very least, countries can offer a "medical visa" option to visitors. As for national borders being unethical by nature, if that logically follows then why not? I certainly don't consider ethics a source of "gotcha" questions, but of real conundrums.

ALittleLight 7y ago

How is it universal care if some people can't get care because they can't afford it? By that logic the US has universal care - any legal treatment your doctor wants to give you and you can afford it, anyone can get.

dba7dba 7y ago
Below blog posting is old but one of the best info available in English on the Korean Healthcare system. http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2010/01/healthcare-system-in-korea.html http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2010/01/healthcare-system-in-... Some may consider the fact that Korean national health insurance only covers around 55 percent of the total healthcare cost to be problematic. This may be true if one takes the idea of guaranteed socialized medicine seriously. But for fiscal conservatives with some measure of compassion for the plight of the uninsured, this could be an attractive balance. While corruption is definitely still a problem with Korean government, the NHIC is surprisingly efficient and well-run. It does a great job squeezing out maximum value out of the tax it receives.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
zpallin 7y ago
Universal Healthcare does not guarantee affordability, only access. You must be thinking of "Free Universal Healthcare". And no, the US does not have it. You can be denied insurance and you won't be able to see most doctors because of it. Some ERs won't even treat you without insurance, especially if it's an expensive procedure.
- justicezyx 7y ago
  > Universal Healthcare does not guarantee affordability I think we have a word for that: affordable health care. Universal Healthcare necessarily covers affordability: """Universal health care is a system that provides quality medical services to all citizens. The federal government offers it to everyone regardless of their ability to pay. """ -- From https://www.thebalance.com/universal-health-care-4156211 https://www.thebalance.com/universal-health-care-4156211
  - zpallin 7y ago
    Except your quote is exactly what I am saying. And just because universal healthcare is "provided to everyone regardless of their ability to pay", it doesn't mean that they'll always be able to pay it. Because even if costs are "affordable" over all, it doesn't guarantee that everyone, including the Kim family in 'Parasite' would be able to afford more expensive treatments without selling their home for 30k.

anonsivalley652 7y ago

I'm sorry but that's wrong because that's trying to twist the meaning of words. No money, no healthcare isn't universal obviously. With no single-payer, government-funded, healthcare system, only doctors and patients who have to pay for everything themselves, that is in no way "universal healthcare." The problem with charging poor people for healthcare is that they get sicker and sicker and then need emergency care, and that's more expensive than giving them free healthcare in the beginning. It's unethical and classist to pick-and-choose who gets life-saving cancer treatment based on their income. Doctors with integrity would be abhorred at being presented with such a decision because it goes against the fundamental values of their profession.

unishark 7y ago
> It's unethical and classist to pick-and-choose who gets life-saving cancer treatment based on their income. Since we're talking ethics, do you also think universal healthcare should be provided by wealthy nations to all the world? Otherwise we are just picking and choosing based on where someone happens to be born, aren't we?
- kevingadd 7y ago
  That question doesn't matter because national sovereignty would prevent other countries from doing that even if they wanted to. It's not a program it's even possible to consider without some really elaborate treaties that many countries would reject. At the core of it what you're basically arguing is that nations are unethical because what citizenship someone holds influences things like their access to health care, and the solution to that would probably look a lot like the EU but completely borderless world-wide (with no immigrations or customs departments?) I think you know how people would react to that. It's a pointless 'gotcha' question
  - unishark 7y ago
    The logistics don't seem difficult at all to me if there's a will. People tend to be pretty accommodating when it comes to letting you give them money. At the very least, countries can offer a "medical visa" option to visitors. As for national borders being unethical by nature, if that logically follows then why not? I certainly don't consider ethics a source of "gotcha" questions, but of real conundrums.