Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Anger in Sweden as elderly pay price for coronavirus strategy [View all]ehrnst
(32,640 posts)36. No, actually, you are incorrect in your use of that terminology. You seem to be confusing
"universal health care" with "single payer," which the Vox article you shared does distinguish.
It's a common mistake with those uninformed one health policy, and a very emotional attachment to certain types of political messaging concerning health care reform.
"In effect" does not a health policy definition make.
I hope that clarifies things for you.
If not, this may:
https://www.verywellhealth.com/difference-between-universal-coverage-and-single-payer-system-1738546
Germany
Germany has universal coverage but does not operate a single-payer system. Instead, everyone living in Germany is required to maintain health coverage. Most employees in Germany are automatically enrolled in one of more than 100 non-profit "sickness funds," paid for by a combination of employee and employer contributions.
Alternatively, there are private health insurance plans available, but as of 2014, only about 11% of German residents choose private health insurance.5
Singapore
Singapore has universal coverage, and large health care expenses are covered (after a deductible) by a government-run insurance system called MediShield. But Singapore also requires everyone to contribute 8 to 10.5% of their income to a MediSave account.6
When patients need routine medical care, they can take money out of their MediSave accounts to pay for it, but the money can only be used for certain expenses, such as medications on a government-approved list.
In Singapore, the government directly subsidizes the cost of health care rather than the cost of insurance (as is the case with insurance plans purchased through the ACA health exchanges in the United States).
As a result, the amount people have to pay for their healthcare in Singapore is much lower than it would be under a U.S. model.
Japan
Japan has universal coverage but does not use a single-payer system. Coverage is mainly provided via thousands of competing health insurance plans in the Statutory Health Insurance System (SHIS). Residents are required to enroll in coverage and pay ongoing premiums for SHIS coverage, but there is also an option to buy private, supplemental health insurance.7
By implementing a less burdensome single-payer model (rather than the separate government, private, and government-linked private health insurance mechanisms we have in the United States), governments like Japan are able to better streamline their national healthcare delivery.
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom is an example of a country with universal coverage and a single-payer system. Technically speaking, the U.K. model can also be classified as socialized medicine since the government owns most of the hospitals and employs the medical providers.
Funding for the UK's National Health Service (NHS) comes from tax revenue. Residents can purchase private health insurance if they want to. It can be used for elective procedures in private hospitals or to gain faster access to care without the waiting period that might otherwise be imposed for non-emergency situations.
Germany has universal coverage but does not operate a single-payer system. Instead, everyone living in Germany is required to maintain health coverage. Most employees in Germany are automatically enrolled in one of more than 100 non-profit "sickness funds," paid for by a combination of employee and employer contributions.
Alternatively, there are private health insurance plans available, but as of 2014, only about 11% of German residents choose private health insurance.5
Singapore
Singapore has universal coverage, and large health care expenses are covered (after a deductible) by a government-run insurance system called MediShield. But Singapore also requires everyone to contribute 8 to 10.5% of their income to a MediSave account.6
When patients need routine medical care, they can take money out of their MediSave accounts to pay for it, but the money can only be used for certain expenses, such as medications on a government-approved list.
In Singapore, the government directly subsidizes the cost of health care rather than the cost of insurance (as is the case with insurance plans purchased through the ACA health exchanges in the United States).
As a result, the amount people have to pay for their healthcare in Singapore is much lower than it would be under a U.S. model.
Japan
Japan has universal coverage but does not use a single-payer system. Coverage is mainly provided via thousands of competing health insurance plans in the Statutory Health Insurance System (SHIS). Residents are required to enroll in coverage and pay ongoing premiums for SHIS coverage, but there is also an option to buy private, supplemental health insurance.7
By implementing a less burdensome single-payer model (rather than the separate government, private, and government-linked private health insurance mechanisms we have in the United States), governments like Japan are able to better streamline their national healthcare delivery.
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom is an example of a country with universal coverage and a single-payer system. Technically speaking, the U.K. model can also be classified as socialized medicine since the government owns most of the hospitals and employs the medical providers.
Funding for the UK's National Health Service (NHS) comes from tax revenue. Residents can purchase private health insurance if they want to. It can be used for elective procedures in private hospitals or to gain faster access to care without the waiting period that might otherwise be imposed for non-emergency situations.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
57 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
My paternal Grandfather also died from the 1918 flu. He was about 33 my mother about 10.
katmondoo
Apr 2020
#10
having the elderly pay the ultimate price is a win-win from the point of view of many
beachbumbob
Apr 2020
#7
I have been warning my Swedish friends about this. They respond with the false sense of superiority
zonkers
Apr 2020
#14
Its probably a good thing, looking at it purely objectively, to have this "experiment"
LiberalLovinLug
Apr 2020
#19
The thing about Sweden is they are not doing this for the benefit of the planet
Steelrolled
Apr 2020
#20
Yes, we have a candidate who works towards fixing and completing Universal Health Care,
ehrnst
Apr 2020
#26
Yup. Germany and Switzerland got great universal coverage through a hybrid ACA-like system. nt
SunSeeker
Apr 2020
#32
Switzerland's population voted against a change to single payer a few years ago.
ehrnst
Apr 2020
#33
No, actually, you are incorrect in your use of that terminology. You seem to be confusing
ehrnst
Apr 2020
#36
Continued attempts to avoid admitting that one is mistaken on the use of one's terminology
ehrnst
Apr 2020
#47
Yes, you continue to move the goalposts, and you contintue to stonewall and attempt to derail
ehrnst
Apr 2020
#53
Actually, you continue to redefine the terminology and moving the goalposts.
TexasTowelie
Apr 2020
#48
I have no respect for Sweden...they allowed people to die without trying to save lives...I am
Demsrule86
Apr 2020
#23
And like here, immigrants, people of color are more affected since they live in dense housing.
SunSeeker
Apr 2020
#42
Elderly pay price in Sweden. Here, it's the young, and the generation to come.
JustABozoOnThisBus
Apr 2020
#52