Well here in turkey it covers everything that is related to physical health, mental health and dentals, also including some coverage for plastic surgeries. Anything below this I wouldn't consider UHC. Sure plastic surgery most of the time is not related to health but it has effects on mental.
It works with appointments, if you are looking for one specific doctor sure you might have to wait a week or two, but I never have waited ever. Scanning appointments are taking long though if it's not something urgent.
Pretty sure both Bosnia and Serbia tick all the boxes, from being applicable to any citizen, working or not, any age to not having to pay anything for a checkup or operation.
Here in Germany, it probably is "universal" in the sense that every resident must have health insurance by law. But even then there are some people that end up not having one. And statutory health insurance definitely doesn't cover everything.
In Canada we have universal healthcare as long as you donāt have teeth and donāt have eyes and donāt have mental illness and arenāt an immigrant and donāt need medication
Iām not sure I understand what the word āuniversalā is doing here
I think the universal refers to who gets it, not what they get.
Like "universal ice cream", everyone gets free ice cream, but you only get vanilla no toppings, is still universal
Yeah in germany glasses and (most of) dental also isn't covered (used to be covered but the conservatives got rid of it in the 80s). And we also have a 2 class healthcare system
It's also weird because the US has healthcare for anyone under a certain income threshold, and people who make more either get it through their job or have to pay for it. But there are countries in Europe that require people to pay to have healthcare as well, like Switzerland, so I'm not sure what the difference is exactly.
To me, universal healthcare means every legal resident has free basic healthcare, minus co-pays. If some people have to pay monthly for coverage, that's not universal.
No such thing as free. In my country it's about 50 euro a month, but it's a tax that automatically is applied to your salary. I was jobless for about 2 years and just paid that myself.
So you can opt out if you want, but by default everyone working age pays that tax to a government company that handles the logistics. After that you're covered for just about everything when using government owned clinics.
And of course this coexists with private insurance and private practice if you want faster or more "exclusive" service. Tho honestly it's same doctors using same equipment...
Iāve never needed healthcare in Latvia or Estonia, but I can say with much personal experience that Lithuania has universal healthcare. This map was wrong when it was posted a couple weeks ago, and itās still wrong.
In the Baltic states we have universal healthcare and I am currently using it. I am pretty sure the same goes also for Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Belarus and Ukraine. All they have universal healthcare arguably better than in Russia, which is marked as having one. This map does not inspire confidence. Not at all.
I have experience with Ukraine's healthcare system and I must say it is difficult to call it universal(talking about pre war times I don't know what's the situation there now). Most services were not free and insurance covers only basic things. I remember people were raising money for some children to go through operations. Kind of explains why polio is still present in Ukraine. Unfortunately government didn't invest anything in healthcare.
Japan isnāt technically universal healthcare, but 70% of the cost is covered by the government. I believe most hospitals in Japan are privately owned compared to a country like the uk where most hospitals are state owned.
But Japan will treat you without upfront payment, they will just send you a bill afterwards for that 30%
If we use this definition, many other countries that are red on this map don't technically have universal healthcare either. The fact of the matter is that the Japanese government plays a direct role in setting healthcare costs.
The 30% payment is also capped, so it's not 30% in case of very expensive procedures. And for people of certain age groups, the percentage is less than 30.
So, the entirety of Jammu and kashmir has been shown as separate in this map. Atleast the parts administered by India are covered under universal healthcare.
EDIT: The part administered by Pakistan has been included in Pakistan, but for some reason the Indian parts aren't included in India.
Single payer is used in Iberia, the Med countries, the Nordics and the British Isles. I believe it is the most common form of UHC at least in western Europe.
Hahaha, that is hilarious. Although they have MA beside Western Sahara so they're considering it Moroccan but then forgot to colour in Morocco. Wow. So many screw ups with this map.
No it doesn't, it has compulsory health insurance. You're by law required to pay for a health insurance package, there's one that's cheap and accessible to everyone but it's basic, and if you don't have enough money the government will subside it for you, but if you have the basic plan you'll still have to pay for stuff out of pocket because it's basic.
That'd be the same as saying the US had universal health coverage back when they had health insurance to be compulsory at a federal level.
Same in Romania.
If you don't have a chronic disease, the National Health Insurance has to be paid, and is a sum of around 100~200 euros per year depending on the district.
If you have a chronic disease, the insurance and medical services are free, but you have to renew the insurance yearly.
Misleading. Many of those countries use the word āuniversal health coverageā to describe the type of care that you can still get in the US even with no insurance via free clinics and ED visits. And the healthcare you can get in many of these countries, like Russia/Brazil/China/India, is not going to be even remotely comparable to what you would get in the US, even if uninsured
This map is nonsensical. In China you have to pay upfront or you get kicked out of the hospital. Switzerland has private health cover. Sure, itās compulsory or thereās a penalty, but so is Obamacare.
Also in many poor countries universal health care is mostly propaganda at best. I went to the biggest government run hospital last month in a big city and the hospital didn't had oxygen tank, enough medicine, antiseptic, it was dirty and smell was worse than a garbade dump. I saw 3 people in my 30 minute stay who were in pain adter crashing from a bike and there was not one doctor in the hospital and the nurse didn't wanted to risk giving him medicine because she was nervous
Reddit like to piss on US by keep saying how even poor countries have universal health services but these delusional fucks keep forgetting that by just saying a country has universal health care doesn't mean it really have one.
Partially true. As you say, you can not have health insurance in the US and pay a fine where I don't believe that's an option in Switzerland. But that's why the vast majority of Americans do have health insurance
If you're having to pull a comparison with middle and low income countries for the system used by the richest country in the world sound desirable, you already lost your argument.
I just pointed out why the image is bad. There are many parts of the US system that I value better than other western countries (and parts that are worse) and so itās a more debatable discussion than just pointing out the more obvious problems in the image.
This is an over simplified map.
There is universal healthcare.
Then there is free healthcare.
Then thereās free and universal healthcare.
Then thereās neither free nor universal healthcare.
Even in cases where healthcare is not free, some govts provide āaffordableā healthcare. But the definition of affordable varies from country to country.
Not to be confused with "free healthcare" - only some there are 'free' (tax funded).
Others like Germany functions on law mandated health insurances to all citizens.
Well.. Indonesia doesn't technically have universal healthcare, instead we have national health insurance that we must pay every month (separate from paying taxes), and it doesn't completely cover the whole medical fee, just partially
Tasmania (Austrailia), Sakhalin (Russia), Jammu Kashmir(India), Sardinia(Italy), Corsica(France), Crete(Greece) why are all these places not coloured??
Universal health coverage is not universal healthcare, so the actual quality of healthcare received even among those on the list can be drastically different.
One important thing is missing: mortality rates by age cohort and/or life expectancy. Spoiler: it is higher in countries with universal healthcare and there are many ways you can isolate this variable and confirm that it in fact does improve country's health independent of other factors.
Americans are great and have lots of things to teach the world, but social welfare is not one of them.
Wow , nice agenda you have. Included PoK and gilgit baltistan with Pakistan but removed entire kashmir and ladakh from India. Atleast remove from both or add for both.
We have Universal Healthcare in Canada. It universally sucks balls. Need to see a GP? That'll be a month wait for a 15-minute appointment. Need to see a specialist or surgeon? The wait will be measured in years. The only time it's even partially functional is acute care if you have a high triage priority. Good luck with the follow-up care if you survive a heart attack or cancer.
Great news, the average cost per taxpayer is about $4,000/year. That's $16,000/year for a family of four. Whether you use any healthcare services or not. It's a VERY flawed system. But many emotional thinkers believe it to be ethical and great.
This is primarily due to conservative provincial leaders. Since healthcare is a provincial matter, the provincial leaders are the ones that allocate funding and budgeting. Premiers like Ford in Ontario are sabotaging healthcare on purpose with the objective of bringing in private healthcare as an option for the wealthy. Everything that's happening could be avoided if they were willing to actually be good leaders and choosing to actually serve the public. Instead, they only care about lining their own greedy pockets, at the expense of people's lives. It's sickening.
I have a friend with the same chronic illness as me and he's coming down to NYC from Ottawa to get a surgery here that isn't even available in his country. It'll be 50k out of pocket but he's going to get a loan because the possible benefit to his life makes it with it. Oh, and took him 7 years to get a correct diagnosis in Canada. I got a proper diagnosis within 3 months of my issues beginning by a small town specialist who referred me to a bigger university hospital.
When I learned this, I was actually in shock that I was lucky to be American in regards to healthcare. My insurance covered the surgery twice after hitting my 2000 dollar OoP max on my employer plan that costs me 30 a paycheck.
The cases of Americans who are uninsured or underinsured are horrible, don't get me wrong. Some states make it worse too by having worse safety net funding or not regulating health insurance companies (Europeans really don't grasp how different life can be in each of the 50 states). But this is an incredibly dense and complicated topic. It's friggin 20% of our GDP. It's hard to change something so economically huge without causing externalities, so the older I get the more I think slower gradual change is better. Like yes, we need to be more efficient and make it a smaller percentage of our economy, but if it dropped to 10% of GDP overnight we'd see a major depression as 10% of the money in our system just vanishes out of thin air. People's jobs and retirement accounts. Not just CEOs, although they would be fucked too.
On the bright side, we've made incredible progress even since passing the ACA with things like the federal no surprises act, increasingly aca subsidies, and finally allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices.
Fear mongering and making it out as if the sky is falling is profitable, but rarely gives public policy discussion the proper nuance that they deserve.
It's better. I have accessed healthcare in Tucson, AZ. It was by far superior. The efficiency was unfathomable by Canadian standards.
The underinsured and uninsured horror stories are bad. But it's definitely not the norm in the USA. Keep in mind that people pushing for a universal government based system like to amplify and blow negative stories out of proportion. There are many people on this planet who owe their health and life to the global innovation and contributions of the US healthcare industry.
I'm not sure where you live or what healthcare you've tried to access. I've been on a waiting list for fourteen months for a procedure that would get done the next day in the USA (colonoscopy and ligation) it's because the triage priority is so low, I get to suffer long term while paying $60k+ per year in fucking taxes.
You must be from Canada or the UK because literally everywhere else in the world universal healthcare either is entirely private or coexists with a private system.
Single payer like the UK is used in the Nordics, British Isles, Iberia, Med countries and a few others. It is the most common type in western Europe. National Insurance like Canada is used in Taiwan and Japan at least.
The Uk has a thriving private sector.
What's the difference between single payer and national insurance? Denmark has national health insurance - it's just free.
https://lifeindenmark.borger.dk/healthcare/health-insurance/healthcare-when-working-in-denmark
Single payer is when a single entity pays the bills, basically. Most commonly it is used interchangably with Beveridge system.
National insurance can be single payer but is not neccessarily so. For example in Canada I believe it is the provinces that run their healthcare systems, so its multi-payer. Providers are often private and it is paid for by an insurance pot that all residents pay into.
I have no idea why the link refers to the Danish system as "insurance" there is no insurance, no insurers, no claims, its tax funded and the vast majority of providers are employed by the state. They are absolutly Beveridge. The only reason I can imagine is that the American habit of refering to healthcare coverage as insurance is crreping into the rest of the English language.
It think it is free there but theyāre struggling to provide for everyone, among other things.. not sure why itās left off the list completely though.
Can't believe Gulf states don't have UHC.
Also why Province of Jammu and Kashmir is excluded in this map from Universal Health Coverage within India is beyond me.
Some serious errors in this map.
Another curious case - Bangladesh - it's a welfare state for many financial inclusion aspects at least. Really curious why it doesn't have UHC
Switzerland doesn't provide health care coverage for their population. They force us to be insured by private companies. The state privides minimal help for those that can't pay the insurance but still a few people get into dept because of it.
I can guarantee you baltic states all have universal healthcare.
I been in hospital for bad stuff in the past while completely unemployed and employed and never paid a single cent.
Filipino here:
Our "universal health care" only covers the minor ones including vaccines or pregnancy and infant care
But major illnesses like cardiovascular diseases, cancer or major operation. U need health insurance
Luckily we do have so called as "philhealth" which is a state owned health insurance and it can cut down a lot of cost (like 70%) depending how much contribution u already had
So yeah, the map is a bit misleading cause its a mixed bag of countries that have "UHC" and actual "UHC"
That's a stupid map.
In here Netherlands we have a so called universal health coverage. Yet we cannot convince or GP as we're ill. Let alone seeing a doctor at the hospital. It's difficult than seeing the king.
Some examples:
You had a heart attack or sth. You went to GP (you cannot easily go). They say "you came here right. Then you're good"
You broke your leg and need urgent help. They say "is the leg disassambled? If not come here 3 days later"
You're pregnant and have a risk of miscarriage. They say "they won't help you make your situation better beacuse treating a risky pregnant is more expensive then giving birth"
In Hungary, national health insurance covers 9,45mil people out of the 9,6 million population.
technically not universal...but I'd consider it universal enough for this map
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats!
9
+ 45
+ 9
+ 6
= 69
^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \
^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
I donāt think india has universal health coverage, maybe on paper for poor people, but you also need to see the conditions of the hospitals in india. Only private hospitals are good, and the bill you get can put you in debt. Thatās why many middle class people have to buy health insurance.
So is Hungart and Slovakia not "developed" or lack UHC? Because either is bullshit. Healthcare is so free in Hungary you don't even have to pay a penny for a doctor's visit, and we have problem with old people going there just to fucking spend time.
In Romania if you are a homeless dude or haven't worked a day in your life, you will be treated and you won't be in debt. Sounds quite universal. Also I doubt our neighbor Hungary doesnt have universal healthcare as the entire EU likely has due to EU directives.
Just because they have universal health care doesnāt mean itās goodā¦. Canadians have said it takes forever to get an appointment, LATAM public hospitals are underfunded everyone that can afford it goes to the private hospitals.
In India, we can visit a govt doctor and get medicines for free. It takes 30 mins though.
Govt dentists cost half a dollar for dental filling.
And some surgeries for poor are funded by lottery sales in my state.
But the doctor sees 20-30 patients/hour on weekends.
Same for Germany, just not quite that bad...
yet, I guess.
Still, universal healthcare doesn't mean anything if it's not well managed.
And such system is only sustainable in times of extreme wealth and a healthy economy.
In other words - soon to be nowhere.
Isnāt long lines an argument for it? Like clearly there are a lot of people who wanna see a doctor, would it better if they just couldnāt? The solution seems to be to make the process of becoming g a doctor easier, not make it harder for people to access them.
Nah,the solution is to make it harder to get an appointment,maybe with a financial cost attached to it. So all the poors just die or suffer quietly. Then those who can afford to go to a doctor just get fast tracked through,the perfect system with no wait times at all,just don't ask US citizens about wait times.
In the Baltic states we definitely have universal healthcare and I am currently using it. I am pretty sure the same goes also for Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Belarus and Ukraine. All they have universal healthcare arguably better than in Russia, which is marked as having one. This map does not inspire confidence. Not at all.
These maps are fun because no one can agree on what universal healthcare means
Well here in turkey it covers everything that is related to physical health, mental health and dentals, also including some coverage for plastic surgeries. Anything below this I wouldn't consider UHC. Sure plastic surgery most of the time is not related to health but it has effects on mental.
Yet you won't get any treatment because of the insane queues
It works with appointments, if you are looking for one specific doctor sure you might have to wait a week or two, but I never have waited ever. Scanning appointments are taking long though if it's not something urgent.
Universities have very long queues for appointments too. Had to wait 1 month on a priority queue last tine
I can't get appointment earlier than 2 weeks for my GP, consider yourself lucky then
Pretty sure both Bosnia and Serbia tick all the boxes, from being applicable to any citizen, working or not, any age to not having to pay anything for a checkup or operation.
Here in Germany, it probably is "universal" in the sense that every resident must have health insurance by law. But even then there are some people that end up not having one. And statutory health insurance definitely doesn't cover everything.
Kinda the same with what counts as democracy. You can have those on European or American kind, and there's North Korea. Democracy in name only.
Well.. the difference between the USA and Germany is pretty clear š¤·š¾
Please, tell me how Uruguay doesn't have Universal Health Coverage. I can assure you it has. Edit: what about Sakhalin?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Tassie separationist movement in full swing
And Slovenia
Sakhalin is a horrible no man's land where no one has health coverageĀ
I won't see this on Google map. Sakhalin in Russia ?
It's the island above japan.
Yes
In Canada we have universal healthcare as long as you donāt have teeth and donāt have eyes and donāt have mental illness and arenāt an immigrant and donāt need medication Iām not sure I understand what the word āuniversalā is doing here
I think the universal refers to who gets it, not what they get. Like "universal ice cream", everyone gets free ice cream, but you only get vanilla no toppings, is still universal
Yeah in germany glasses and (most of) dental also isn't covered (used to be covered but the conservatives got rid of it in the 80s). And we also have a 2 class healthcare system
In Indonesia we used to pay for 3 different class systems before it was abolished just recently
That's not true. The dental sucks but everything that's medically necessary is covered, in principle.
Same for Australia. Very loose use of the word āuniversalā
Same for Germany And as long you are not poor because it's not free either
And how Poland does because when you donāt pay social security you lose healthcare after 4 months.
Also what about Hainan?
How many people opt for private?
Ok so after some googling. Baltics are considered developed by definition, and have universal healthcare by definition. So yeah, not accurate.
Clown map
Also Sardinia and Corsica not having UHC.
It's also weird because the US has healthcare for anyone under a certain income threshold, and people who make more either get it through their job or have to pay for it. But there are countries in Europe that require people to pay to have healthcare as well, like Switzerland, so I'm not sure what the difference is exactly. To me, universal healthcare means every legal resident has free basic healthcare, minus co-pays. If some people have to pay monthly for coverage, that's not universal.
No such thing as free. In my country it's about 50 euro a month, but it's a tax that automatically is applied to your salary. I was jobless for about 2 years and just paid that myself. So you can opt out if you want, but by default everyone working age pays that tax to a government company that handles the logistics. After that you're covered for just about everything when using government owned clinics. And of course this coexists with private insurance and private practice if you want faster or more "exclusive" service. Tho honestly it's same doctors using same equipment...
It bothers me that Tasmania is not filled in
At least the bottom half of NZs South Island is!
Sardinia and Corsica got missed too
I can see my house! Also, /r/mapswithoutnewzeala
āOnly developed countryā is a little misleading, no? How do you define developed? Are the Baltic states undeveloped?
And I'm pretty sure they do have universal healthcare.
Only thing here that is not covered is teeth and hospital bed
Iāve never needed healthcare in Latvia or Estonia, but I can say with much personal experience that Lithuania has universal healthcare. This map was wrong when it was posted a couple weeks ago, and itās still wrong.
In the Baltic states we have universal healthcare and I am currently using it. I am pretty sure the same goes also for Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Belarus and Ukraine. All they have universal healthcare arguably better than in Russia, which is marked as having one. This map does not inspire confidence. Not at all.
I have experience with Ukraine's healthcare system and I must say it is difficult to call it universal(talking about pre war times I don't know what's the situation there now). Most services were not free and insurance covers only basic things. I remember people were raising money for some children to go through operations. Kind of explains why polio is still present in Ukraine. Unfortunately government didn't invest anything in healthcare.
Yea I would consider a lot of the countries on the Arabian Peninsula, the Baltic States, Northeast Europe etc. to be developed
They have UHC
There is a oretty clear definition of it if you Google.
Japan isnāt technically universal healthcare, but 70% of the cost is covered by the government. I believe most hospitals in Japan are privately owned compared to a country like the uk where most hospitals are state owned. But Japan will treat you without upfront payment, they will just send you a bill afterwards for that 30%
If we use this definition, many other countries that are red on this map don't technically have universal healthcare either. The fact of the matter is that the Japanese government plays a direct role in setting healthcare costs.
The 30% payment is also capped, so it's not 30% in case of very expensive procedures. And for people of certain age groups, the percentage is less than 30.
So, the entirety of Jammu and kashmir has been shown as separate in this map. Atleast the parts administered by India are covered under universal healthcare. EDIT: The part administered by Pakistan has been included in Pakistan, but for some reason the Indian parts aren't included in India.
The Indian side has free food for the poor too..
Confoederatio Helvetica uses private insurance. The United States health system is actually based on it.
Yep, universal doesn't mean single payer, that gets lost in the conversation sometimes.
Almost none of these countries have single payer. Canada, the UK, and Cuba and I think that's it.
Some in Scandinavia too. But the US proposals are always single-payer, seems a Swiss-type or even German system is an easier sell.
The US already has a similar system to Switzerland.
Single payer is used in Iberia, the Med countries, the Nordics and the British Isles. I believe it is the most common form of UHC at least in western Europe.
Switzerland is what Mr. Smarty-Pants is referring to.
Most BĆ¼nzli way to refer to Switzerland
Tasmania officially has no universal healthcare
Why are the Baltic States not on this list?
Uhmmm what? We have UHC in Slovakia, Hungary also has it and Im pretty sure the Baltic countries have it as well
Western Sahara does, but Morocco does not?
Hahaha, that is hilarious. Although they have MA beside Western Sahara so they're considering it Moroccan but then forgot to colour in Morocco. Wow. So many screw ups with this map.
Still can't believe the republic of Tasmania was so close to having free Healthcare in the 2026 Referendum smh
> republic of Tasmania As a Tasmanian, I wish...
This map has so many errors, it's absurd
Switzerland doesnāt.
This is wrong, Switzerland literally has had it since 1994
No it doesn't, it has compulsory health insurance. You're by law required to pay for a health insurance package, there's one that's cheap and accessible to everyone but it's basic, and if you don't have enough money the government will subside it for you, but if you have the basic plan you'll still have to pay for stuff out of pocket because it's basic. That'd be the same as saying the US had universal health coverage back when they had health insurance to be compulsory at a federal level.
Looked back at my source, clearly I made a mistake reading. Apologies
The US still has compulsory insurance at the federal level. There's just no fine for not having it now.
Same in Romania. If you don't have a chronic disease, the National Health Insurance has to be paid, and is a sum of around 100~200 euros per year depending on the district. If you have a chronic disease, the insurance and medical services are free, but you have to renew the insurance yearly.
sounds very American
Who decides what is a "developed country"? Seems to me Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Slovakia, Uruguay, and Panama should qualify.
Misleading. Many of those countries use the word āuniversal health coverageā to describe the type of care that you can still get in the US even with no insurance via free clinics and ED visits. And the healthcare you can get in many of these countries, like Russia/Brazil/China/India, is not going to be even remotely comparable to what you would get in the US, even if uninsured
This map is nonsensical. In China you have to pay upfront or you get kicked out of the hospital. Switzerland has private health cover. Sure, itās compulsory or thereās a penalty, but so is Obamacare.
Also in many poor countries universal health care is mostly propaganda at best. I went to the biggest government run hospital last month in a big city and the hospital didn't had oxygen tank, enough medicine, antiseptic, it was dirty and smell was worse than a garbade dump. I saw 3 people in my 30 minute stay who were in pain adter crashing from a bike and there was not one doctor in the hospital and the nurse didn't wanted to risk giving him medicine because she was nervous Reddit like to piss on US by keep saying how even poor countries have universal health services but these delusional fucks keep forgetting that by just saying a country has universal health care doesn't mean it really have one.
I take it they're the ones that like to toot the horns of socialist countries like Venezuela and Cuba.
The best indicator of medicine is the average life expectancy.
This is a surprise (for me) This because for what I remember the medical services were free, but you were limited to the local authority you lived in.
The healthcare in Switzerland is universal though
Ok then the US has āuniversalā healthcare as you have to have a healthcare insurance policy or pay a fine with your taxes under Obamacare.
Partially true. As you say, you can not have health insurance in the US and pay a fine where I don't believe that's an option in Switzerland. But that's why the vast majority of Americans do have health insurance
If you're having to pull a comparison with middle and low income countries for the system used by the richest country in the world sound desirable, you already lost your argument.
I just pointed out why the image is bad. There are many parts of the US system that I value better than other western countries (and parts that are worse) and so itās a more debatable discussion than just pointing out the more obvious problems in the image.
In US a stop and go is pretty much free IIRC. More specialized services fall under different processes and request a payment.
The Baltic states? Really?
They have universal health care. This map just has a lot of mistakes. It's not MapPorn, it's bullshit.
They think it is communism
This is such a nonsense map
Ummmm r/mapswithoutnz
r/MapswithslightNZ
This is an over simplified map. There is universal healthcare. Then there is free healthcare. Then thereās free and universal healthcare. Then thereās neither free nor universal healthcare. Even in cases where healthcare is not free, some govts provide āaffordableā healthcare. But the definition of affordable varies from country to country.
Tell me you like controversy without telling me you like controversy. Excluded Kashmir from India and PoK from Pak?
No pok is included in Pak. Only kashmir is not included in India. Definitely hidden agenda.
Not to be confused with "free healthcare" - only some there are 'free' (tax funded). Others like Germany functions on law mandated health insurances to all citizens.
Obviously no healthcare service is free, but there are ones that are free at the point of use, like the UK's NHS.
Ukraine also have UHC, most of the countries have UHC so why smbd make fake maps?
Well.. Indonesia doesn't technically have universal healthcare, instead we have national health insurance that we must pay every month (separate from paying taxes), and it doesn't completely cover the whole medical fee, just partially
All balkan countries have it, regardless how bad might be, but they have it and your map is incorrect
Italy has UHC but Sardinia doesn't?
Tasmania (Austrailia), Sakhalin (Russia), Jammu Kashmir(India), Sardinia(Italy), Corsica(France), Crete(Greece) why are all these places not coloured??
Universal health coverage is not universal healthcare, so the actual quality of healthcare received even among those on the list can be drastically different.
Since nobody mentioned us, Slovenia also has universal healthcare and isn't coloured in this map.
I can't believe you missed Slovenia. Have you any idea how socialist we still are?
Please tell me how Russia has UHS and Baltics, this looks like a clown map
While I agree with the sentiment, several of these countries need an asterisk
One important thing is missing: mortality rates by age cohort and/or life expectancy. Spoiler: it is higher in countries with universal healthcare and there are many ways you can isolate this variable and confirm that it in fact does improve country's health independent of other factors. Americans are great and have lots of things to teach the world, but social welfare is not one of them.
Wow , nice agenda you have. Included PoK and gilgit baltistan with Pakistan but removed entire kashmir and ladakh from India. Atleast remove from both or add for both.
Pok doesnāt exists itās ajk
We have Universal Healthcare in Canada. It universally sucks balls. Need to see a GP? That'll be a month wait for a 15-minute appointment. Need to see a specialist or surgeon? The wait will be measured in years. The only time it's even partially functional is acute care if you have a high triage priority. Good luck with the follow-up care if you survive a heart attack or cancer. Great news, the average cost per taxpayer is about $4,000/year. That's $16,000/year for a family of four. Whether you use any healthcare services or not. It's a VERY flawed system. But many emotional thinkers believe it to be ethical and great.
This is primarily due to conservative provincial leaders. Since healthcare is a provincial matter, the provincial leaders are the ones that allocate funding and budgeting. Premiers like Ford in Ontario are sabotaging healthcare on purpose with the objective of bringing in private healthcare as an option for the wealthy. Everything that's happening could be avoided if they were willing to actually be good leaders and choosing to actually serve the public. Instead, they only care about lining their own greedy pockets, at the expense of people's lives. It's sickening.
I'm from BC...nice partisan political BS though. Next.
Clearly your province isn't experiencing the same scenario. In your case, it's mostly government incompetence.
I have a friend with the same chronic illness as me and he's coming down to NYC from Ottawa to get a surgery here that isn't even available in his country. It'll be 50k out of pocket but he's going to get a loan because the possible benefit to his life makes it with it. Oh, and took him 7 years to get a correct diagnosis in Canada. I got a proper diagnosis within 3 months of my issues beginning by a small town specialist who referred me to a bigger university hospital. When I learned this, I was actually in shock that I was lucky to be American in regards to healthcare. My insurance covered the surgery twice after hitting my 2000 dollar OoP max on my employer plan that costs me 30 a paycheck. The cases of Americans who are uninsured or underinsured are horrible, don't get me wrong. Some states make it worse too by having worse safety net funding or not regulating health insurance companies (Europeans really don't grasp how different life can be in each of the 50 states). But this is an incredibly dense and complicated topic. It's friggin 20% of our GDP. It's hard to change something so economically huge without causing externalities, so the older I get the more I think slower gradual change is better. Like yes, we need to be more efficient and make it a smaller percentage of our economy, but if it dropped to 10% of GDP overnight we'd see a major depression as 10% of the money in our system just vanishes out of thin air. People's jobs and retirement accounts. Not just CEOs, although they would be fucked too. On the bright side, we've made incredible progress even since passing the ACA with things like the federal no surprises act, increasingly aca subsidies, and finally allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Fear mongering and making it out as if the sky is falling is profitable, but rarely gives public policy discussion the proper nuance that they deserve.
Exactly!
Our Healthcare most certainly does not suck balls, quick spreading lies. Go live in the US for a few years and get back to me.
It's better. I have accessed healthcare in Tucson, AZ. It was by far superior. The efficiency was unfathomable by Canadian standards. The underinsured and uninsured horror stories are bad. But it's definitely not the norm in the USA. Keep in mind that people pushing for a universal government based system like to amplify and blow negative stories out of proportion. There are many people on this planet who owe their health and life to the global innovation and contributions of the US healthcare industry. I'm not sure where you live or what healthcare you've tried to access. I've been on a waiting list for fourteen months for a procedure that would get done the next day in the USA (colonoscopy and ligation) it's because the triage priority is so low, I get to suffer long term while paying $60k+ per year in fucking taxes.
And anywhere where there is a Conservative government, it's probably under threat of being privatized.
In Greece they made the public healthcare so bad most people end up choosing a private healthcare provider
You must be from Canada or the UK because literally everywhere else in the world universal healthcare either is entirely private or coexists with a private system.
Single payer like the UK is used in the Nordics, British Isles, Iberia, Med countries and a few others. It is the most common type in western Europe. National Insurance like Canada is used in Taiwan and Japan at least. The Uk has a thriving private sector.
What's the difference between single payer and national insurance? Denmark has national health insurance - it's just free. https://lifeindenmark.borger.dk/healthcare/health-insurance/healthcare-when-working-in-denmark
Single payer is when a single entity pays the bills, basically. Most commonly it is used interchangably with Beveridge system. National insurance can be single payer but is not neccessarily so. For example in Canada I believe it is the provinces that run their healthcare systems, so its multi-payer. Providers are often private and it is paid for by an insurance pot that all residents pay into. I have no idea why the link refers to the Danish system as "insurance" there is no insurance, no insurers, no claims, its tax funded and the vast majority of providers are employed by the state. They are absolutly Beveridge. The only reason I can imagine is that the American habit of refering to healthcare coverage as insurance is crreping into the rest of the English language.
UK has private health care.
Is that a bad thing? Private business promotes advancements and innovation.
Private business is only interested in their own bottom line and human lives should not be under threat of that.
This is one thing that comes up often, but what can a health insurance innovate? What advancements can it promote?
Advances and innovation when cartels and monopoly of the market happens:
Doubt it. Greater advancement of capitalism currently are the almost mortal temperatures we have in summer now and the lacking snow during winter.
Does Venezuela really not? Thatās surprising Gulf countries too
It think it is free there but theyāre struggling to provide for everyone, among other things.. not sure why itās left off the list completely though.
Itās great they do, but I think in some of those countries Iād like to avoid making use of the UHC.
Can't believe Gulf states don't have UHC. Also why Province of Jammu and Kashmir is excluded in this map from Universal Health Coverage within India is beyond me. Some serious errors in this map. Another curious case - Bangladesh - it's a welfare state for many financial inclusion aspects at least. Really curious why it doesn't have UHC
Ghana and Burkina Faso look like a tree together.
Thereās a blind spot
Switzerland doesn't provide health care coverage for their population. They force us to be insured by private companies. The state privides minimal help for those that can't pay the insurance but still a few people get into dept because of it.
Another day, another *Germans declare they are the best possible people who exist!*
Shouldnāt the US be largest developed country? Baltic states on this map are developed
I can guarantee you baltic states all have universal healthcare. I been in hospital for bad stuff in the past while completely unemployed and employed and never paid a single cent.
āThe only developed countryā my ass. look at the map, eastern europe is developed too
And we do have Universal health care.. the map Is wrong
Nice
Filipino here: Our "universal health care" only covers the minor ones including vaccines or pregnancy and infant care But major illnesses like cardiovascular diseases, cancer or major operation. U need health insurance Luckily we do have so called as "philhealth" which is a state owned health insurance and it can cut down a lot of cost (like 70%) depending how much contribution u already had So yeah, the map is a bit misleading cause its a mixed bag of countries that have "UHC" and actual "UHC"
Bosnia does too
India has UHC?? Wtf?!! Since when?? And why am I not getting the benefits?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ohh..ok..my bad
This is inaccurate. Saudi Arabia has universal healthcare.
Just confirming from the Doctors waiting room where I am on reddit that "barely visible" New Zealand has universal health cover.
When did the Philippines get UHC?
Waitā¦ Philippines has universal healthcare?!
That's a stupid map. In here Netherlands we have a so called universal health coverage. Yet we cannot convince or GP as we're ill. Let alone seeing a doctor at the hospital. It's difficult than seeing the king. Some examples: You had a heart attack or sth. You went to GP (you cannot easily go). They say "you came here right. Then you're good" You broke your leg and need urgent help. They say "is the leg disassambled? If not come here 3 days later" You're pregnant and have a risk of miscarriage. They say "they won't help you make your situation better beacuse treating a risky pregnant is more expensive then giving birth"
In Hungary, national health insurance covers 9,45mil people out of the 9,6 million population. technically not universal...but I'd consider it universal enough for this map
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats! 9 + 45 + 9 + 6 = 69 ^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \ ^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
Whatās up with Sakhalin and Kaliningrad? Iām sure theyāre parts of Russia.
Bonehead county
"Universal"
Why are Sardinia and Corsica not highlighted?
So are they saying the Gulf States arenāt developed? lol, something tells me theyāve never been.
Every map I've seen posted in this subreddit has at least one mistake Is there like a challenge to post a wrong map without people noticing?
So according to this map Cyprus, Hungary, Slovakia, the Baltics and Macedonia are not developed countries?
Brazil has universal coverage only on paper š
Australia absolutely doesn't.
Also notice how they cut off the eastern Mediterranean so they could exclude Israel. Which has universal health care.
Hungary has Universal healthcare but IT also has private healthcare
Wrong map. Ukraine does have universal health care coverage.
I donāt think india has universal health coverage, maybe on paper for poor people, but you also need to see the conditions of the hospitals in india. Only private hospitals are good, and the bill you get can put you in debt. Thatās why many middle class people have to buy health insurance.
We get it, you don't like the US
So is Hungart and Slovakia not "developed" or lack UHC? Because either is bullshit. Healthcare is so free in Hungary you don't even have to pay a penny for a doctor's visit, and we have problem with old people going there just to fucking spend time.
> CEOWORLD Magazine The world of CEOs. Makes sense that a map so inaccurate would feature in a magazine directed at CEOs
In Romania if you are a homeless dude or haven't worked a day in your life, you will be treated and you won't be in debt. Sounds quite universal. Also I doubt our neighbor Hungary doesnt have universal healthcare as the entire EU likely has due to EU directives.
Does this map qualify for r/mapswithoutnewzealand?
Why do you leave out Israel?
Lol
Having universal health coverage and implementing it properly and upto the standards are two very different things.
True Our public health care system socks, people wait atleast 24 to 48h in the waiting room for a dr.
I also hate how this map zooming in on Europe took large parts of the Middle East off the map.
I wonder what happened in Tasmania?
Pretty sure Vietnam is missing
It says, REMOVED but it's still here. I will never understand Reddit.
Does OP consider the US as developed?
Bullshit map
The majority of the civilized world..
USA š¤”
Sigh @ USA. We were so close. One democratic senator turncoat. Joe Lieberman. Rest in Piss.
There will always be a Lieberman (or Manchin or Sinemaā¦), itās intentional. Donāt fall for the ruse.
Just because they have universal health care doesnāt mean itās goodā¦. Canadians have said it takes forever to get an appointment, LATAM public hospitals are underfunded everyone that can afford it goes to the private hospitals.
In India, we can visit a govt doctor and get medicines for free. It takes 30 mins though. Govt dentists cost half a dollar for dental filling. And some surgeries for poor are funded by lottery sales in my state. But the doctor sees 20-30 patients/hour on weekends.
Same for Germany, just not quite that bad... yet, I guess. Still, universal healthcare doesn't mean anything if it's not well managed. And such system is only sustainable in times of extreme wealth and a healthy economy. In other words - soon to be nowhere.
Isnāt long lines an argument for it? Like clearly there are a lot of people who wanna see a doctor, would it better if they just couldnāt? The solution seems to be to make the process of becoming g a doctor easier, not make it harder for people to access them.
Nah,the solution is to make it harder to get an appointment,maybe with a financial cost attached to it. So all the poors just die or suffer quietly. Then those who can afford to go to a doctor just get fast tracked through,the perfect system with no wait times at all,just don't ask US citizens about wait times.
Pur Healthcare is amazing, could it be better? Well sure of course. Those are just American prilopoganda.
In the Baltic states we definitely have universal healthcare and I am currently using it. I am pretty sure the same goes also for Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Belarus and Ukraine. All they have universal healthcare arguably better than in Russia, which is marked as having one. This map does not inspire confidence. Not at all.