if this is true, “the public” has a very funny way of showing that. you just mention a different health care system to 1/2 of this country and see where that takes you (will guess you will hear socialism during those rants…) :)
That’s why you get complaints about healthcare wait times in Canada and the UK when people propose adopting fully nationalized systems like those.
Those complaints come from people with decent to good insurance that have never been bitten by a denial, which unfortunately is the majority of the employed population. People are very bad at voting for something that hurts them directly (lack of abundance of immediate healthcare) to solve an issue that hasn’t directly impacted them.
We do have highest spending for healthcare among peers, having healthcare universal wouldn’t necessary mean long wait times.
How far were you willing to travel? In my local smaller city a skin cancer specialist was also unavailable for several weeks but I was able to take a two hour trip to the Mayo Clinic and got in there 2 days later with a referral.
In the UK it’s controlled at a a national level and you can’t travel two hours with an overnight stay to fix it like you can in the US.
Separately from specialists, urgent care facilities have a very high density here so immediate things can be addressed quite quickly.
>having healthcare universal wouldn’t necessary mean long wait times.
I have yet to see a system where that’s true. A friend got pneumonia in Canada and had to wait 14 hours in the ER before being diagnosed and given antibiotics.
I don’t think you can get all 3 of cheap, good, and fast. That adage applies to everything else in the world.
i don't like the curret system but it isn't as bad as you would think if you read he comnents on the internet.
I also have family in Canada that first-hand say that what we are reading here about Canada’s health care system is absolute garbage and lies… so there’s that…
