this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2023
990 points (94.9% liked)

World News

38978 readers
1792 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Finland ranked seventh in the world in OECD's student assessment chart in 2018, well above the UK and the United States, where there is a mix of private and state education

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 85 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Same for health care. If the rich had no other option but to depend on the public system, they'd be more likely to ensure it's properly funded.

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Finland does actually have a private sector for health care.

The difference tends to be in how fast you get appointments for non-critical health issues. If I have a cough I'm worried about, I can go to my employer provided healthcare and speak to a doctor via phone in literally 20 minutes.

The public system atm would diagnose me with an automated quiz and determine my case to be "non-urgent". I would eventually get a doctors appointment, if I'm persistent and find all the right numbers to call, online forms to fill in, etc.

If the matter is urgent however, the public system takes things very seriously. And private sector doctors will even forward you to a public hospital in some cases, if they don't have the staff or equipment needed to help you in a particular case. With concussions for example, I've just walked into the local ER and been taken care of right away. If you need an ambulance, you don't need to weigh your life against bankruptcy.

The public system is also efficient (except when it isn't). That means you won't always see staff spend their time on bedside manner. Their job is to keep you healthy, not happy (unless you're there for mental issues). In my experience the private sector has a higher standard for customer service, because you're not just a patient when you pay for your care. Your satisfaction matters more since they actually care about getting repeat customers.

Meanwhile, public healthcare wold prefer you never come back, which is sometimes a good thing, and sometimes bad.

I use both sides of the system, and as I already mentioned, the two sides inter-operate in many cases. While it's been a huge mess at times, Finland is investing in a patient-data-management system called APOTTI which lets you switch doctors and care-providers seamlessly taking your patient-history with you. I once got x-rayd by my employee healthcare, then got sent to a hand surgeon in the public sector so I could get the diagnosis from those x-rays the same day. I left the private hospital and walked into the public one like they were operated by the same company. It's amazing.

[–] Marsupial@quokk.au -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Poor Finland.

Imagine if the funding being used so your employer could get you to see a doctor in 20 minutes, was available for everyone, as a public service.

Instead you’ve split your healthcare in two, and as such you’re going to have people poached away from offering the best care to everyone.

[–] Srovex@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I guess the rationale is that you give precedence to the people paying for the healthcare (middleclass workers) to get them back to contributing to workforce (and earning those tax euros) as soon as possible. Also the decision is done by the companies (trying to keep their employees in working condition, also a big perk when employees are comparing different employers) and not the government so you can't just decide to move the money like you just described.

[–] red@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago

Companies are by law required to offer health care. So when you're working, you can choose which to use. Often work place healthcare is for those more urgent, yet smaller things. If you get cancer, you go to the public system or pay for private care.

But everyone here can get free care, which is the key take. You can just get some things faster via the workplace, or you can also pay to get a team of specialists or whatnot.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)