Have you yet seen what you have to deal with here?

All systems have problems. Other systems don’t seem to bankrupt or kill as many people.

Other systems kill plenty of people. What I have to deal with here could be far better, but I definitely prefer it to the NHS.

You'd be an outlier then.

Also consider that as a "NYC Googler" you are not getting the true American healthcare experience.

No true Scotsman, eh?

Not at all -- you work for (and I assume are insured through) a rich company that contracts with insurers who are incentivized to keep that company happy and maintain their contract. Most Americans don't.

Google is also self-insured, which means that Google is actually paying for healthcare, not the insurer -- the insurer just manages the networks & relationships with providers, and it's just pure profit for them. Google, meanwhile, wants healthy employees. No one has an incentive to deny claims, so ultimately you are seeing the best side of the system, in which almost every actor wants good outcomes.

Contrast this with Medicare or Medicaid, or private insurance on the individual level, where the incentive is to reduce "medical loss", the industry term for...actually paying for healthcare. Arguing with insurers over denied claims is par for the course -- so much so that some insurers just routinely deny things (and patient is on the hook) that their own plans say should be covered, with the hope that patients won't realize they can appeal.

Having experienced both ends of this -- as a former Googler myself and in the individual market pre-ACA ("Obamacare") -- I can tell you the difference between the wealthy corporate insurance plans and the individual market is night and day.

Is your country of origin held up as having a particular high standard of nationalised healthcare?

I'm from England; I'll let you make your own determination about the reputation of the NHS.

Sorry for the very belated response. I'm also from England, and I have a number of American colleagues who live and work in the UK and strongly prefer the NHS (with all its drawbacks) to the American system of healthcare. So I'm surprised to hear your opinion.

This speaks more to your country of origin than it does to universal healthcare.

> This speaks more to your country of origin than it does to universal healthcare.

Ignoring the rudeness of your comment, who is to say that the implementation of universal healthcare in the US will not wind up as dysfunctional as the system in the parent poster's country?

The problem with endtime's argument is that it's a non-sequitur. It comes down to:

> There is a country where government-run healthcare is bad. Therefore a proposed government-run healthcare system is probably also bad.

This simply doesn't follow. I could make the same argument backwards by pointing to a country where government-run healthcare works well, and concluding that therefore universal healthcare in the US is going to be awesome.

endtime is demonstrating his/her sentiment, but does nothing to advance the discussion.

I was responding to a comment which said:

> No. There is a very large number of people in the US who are (for whatever reason) against universal health care.

I was responding specifically to the "for whatever reason" part, giving an example of a reason.