The US HAS socialized medicine, to a lesser extent than some other countries. It also does idiocy in addition that other countries don't.
Note that obesity is a risk factor for maternal mortality just as one example, so countries with fewer overweight people are going to perform better with equal care. It's pretty hard to control for variables in practice. I accept that the US system is grossly inefficient though.
We have universal health Care here and it costs the government about a 3rd of the USA costs. Do it's more efficient and cheaper.
You can also go private. It's also cheaper than the USA.
Where it's worse is for some cutting edge treatments or really expensive drugs for obscure conditions. You probably couldn't afford that stuff in the USA either but your insurance policy might cover it idk.
That's more to do with economy of scale than universal vs private. The government will also pay for private care if they can do it cheaper than public or if public is full.
You also might have waiting list for non critical care. That's where private is useful.
This argument can easily be extended to health care, for example if someone smokes or overeats they cost the taxpayer more. Therefore there is a legit case based on this reasoning to deny people who overeat extra healthcare beyond what a healthy person receives...or if you smoke you're SOL.
So am I right to say that this whole healthcare argument is a tangent, in the sense that you (TMIT) don't actually favor punitive healthcare denial policies based on behaviors deemed "unhealthy"... rather you were just raising this example to analogize it to policies designed to punish/discourage/inconvenience gun ownership?
I looked at the US health spending. You can afford it but you would have to do some combination of.
1. Dismantling the current system. In theory you can afford it already the drug and isurance industry seems to be gouging the tax payer.
2. Put up taxes.
3. Divert other spending, probably military spending.
1 seems to be the big issue USA is already spending more per person than countries with universal care.
Way I see it is private care is there for those who can afford it/insurance and its in effect partly subsidised by the public system. Going universal drives their costs down as well.
I had to go back and look for the connection, but I finally found this exchange: So am I right to say that this whole healthcare argument is a tangent, in the sense that you (TMIT) don't actually favor punitive healthcare denial policies based on behaviors deemed "unhealthy"... rather you were just raising this example to analogize it to policies designed to punish/discourage/inconvenience gun ownership?
Yeah. Punitive healthcare in the sense described would be untenable to nonsense proportions. I'd much prefer the system work differently outright. Health care is obnoxious because most patients (myself included) just can't get the breadth of knowledge to make completely informed choices all the time, yet I expect insurance companies to be even worse at it because most patients at least care about themselves somewhat.
I was using it as an example to refute *some* policies against gun ownership.
The biggest problem is that most of the people in the US that are covered through their employers get better health care than those countries that have universal care. So the incentive to be an activist for pushing universal care is limited to a subset of the population which even when they scream the rest don't care to listen.
If you've ever had to file an insurance claim yourself, if you've ever had to figure out which doctor's office you could visit because you needed to find one that would take your insurance, then you just straight-up do not have better care than is offered under single-payer. Medicare-for-all would be so superior to private insurance that the private insurers used their Congressional puppets to kill the public option in the ACA, knowing they would be unable to compete with it.
They might get better quality than other countriews with universal health care.
That is not public vs private though more economy of scale. USA has lots of things NZ for example doesn't just based on size. I would also be suspicious of a candidate who wants to abolish the private part. IN NZ for example you can still get private care, its just cheaper than the USA. Even here some things can't be treated public or private unless you are very rich and you might have to fly to a different country.
Every now and then you hear a sob story in the media about someone needing treatment that costs $250 000+ and they can't get it because the drug doesn't exist here because pharmac doesn't fund it. The private sector doesn't either and in the USA IDK, the drug might be available but you're still gonna be looking at the USA price tag. The health care is for most of the people most of the time, it doesn't cover everything.
Some example as I rarely go to the doctor.
As a student (2013)
Doctor visit $5
Prescription $5 (real cost $100)
Doctor (as worker 2014)
Visit $48
Prescription less than $20
Physiotherapy free or really cheap (sub $50).
Would have been cheaper but my health card had expired and I had not renewed it (that is on me). The worker cost was full price walking in off the street.
Economy of scale certainly plays a role, and it's why I favor single-payer as then the government can use its monopsony status to bargain for good prices.
The part you're not getting though is the difference between a health system that's run to produce private profit and one that's run to produce good health outcomes.
If you've ever had to file an insurance claim yourself, if you've ever had to figure out which doctor's office you could visit because you needed to find one that would take your insurance, then you just straight-up do not have better care than is offered under single-payer. Medicare-for-all would be so superior to private insurance that the private insurers used their Congressional puppets to kill the public option in the ACA, knowing they would be unable to compete with it.
You just changed the discussion. We were talking about universal care offered by other countries.
And I don't have to file a claim myself, that's part of the point. I don't have to figure out those things.
We hear many complaints about wait times and rationing from some of those companies.
I need an appointment, I can get one almost immediately.
I recently got a surgery that medicare wouldn't have covered. And I'll be buying a supplemental policy when I apply for medicare next year.
We don't know what a single-payer medicare for all is going to cover but I'll be willing to bet that supplemental policies will still be needed.
I'd like to see data to back that, somewhat frustrating to find precise figures on specific things.
USA is some frankenstein nonsense of partial socialization and "everyone including physician is pocketed by insurance companies" with gouged cost. It doesn't surprise me that at least some countries outperform that but cutting down at least one of the players in it.
I'll try to find some stats for you but suffice to say that your argument is already shifting to that the healthcare market is free enough to actually be a good arbiter of supply and demand. This point is fundamentally flawed considering a few things the demand for healthcare is never reasonable or should be governed by market forces for the very reason that "what are you willing to pay to survive?" is not a fair or just question in any moral setting that anyone can respect in good faith. Second, the reality that healthcare is a human right on some level isn't lost on conservatives in this country and to try to reverse course on that now seems less than humane. So for example the largest government program medicare is a wildly popular among all demographics. Finally we are already paying wildly more than anyone else and getting dramatically worse results.
This is about the friendliest article I could find for your case @TheMeInTeam .
I'm saying in other countries they don't really worry about that crap. There's not a bunch of different "networks" of health infrastructure each covered by a different insurer.
I think rather than my insurance being uncommonly bad (it's not, I don't have health insurance through my employer but they reimburse premiums for my individual plan so I got the best one available through the ACA exchange) yours is uncommonly good. Which makes sense because unless I'm much mistaken you're one of the higher-echelon employees at your company.
Bottom line is this: if the attitude of all those people with employer-provided health insurance towards those without insurance is "screw you jack, I've got mine" then they have no right to complain when action is taken to remedy the situation.
You just changed the discussion. We were talking about universal care offered by other countries.
And I don't have to file a claim myself, that's part of the point. I don't have to figure out those things.
We hear many complaints about wait times and rationing from some of those companies.
I need an appointment, I can get one almost immediately.
I recently got a surgery that medicare wouldn't have covered. And I'll be buying a supplemental policy when I apply for medicare next year.
We don't know what a single-payer medicare for all is going to cover but I'll be willing to bet that supplemental policies will still be needed.
Which since you have done well in life you can supplement in your retirement as well. The talk about abolishing private health insurance will never fly, but getting everyone to a minimum point and saving a ton of money getting to that minimum point is of utmost pertinence.
You can get a regular appointment immediately in Canada as well.
Economy of scale certainly plays a role, and it's why I favor single-payer as then the government can use its monopsony status to bargain for good prices.
The part you're not getting though is the difference between a health system that's run to produce private profit and one that's run to produce good health outcomes.
You can have both. The government farms out work to the private sector on occasion but they also benefit from pharmac which buys in bulk as the private hospitals source their drugs from the same places. Pharmac is the medical body that negotiates buying drugs. 2017/2018 they had a $918 million budget. Basically they go to the drug companies and say "we have a billion dollars more or less what deal can you give us".
They're basically there to make some money and enhance the public system. The government uses them as well and they are also reliant on public funding directly and indirectly.
The private hospitals here have slightly to a lot nicer rooms, better meals and you might get quicker care for non critical stuff. I have life insurance but not health insurance. I had it at one of my old jobs, never used it. Sometimes you do get backlogs for things like test results but when mum needed cancer treatment once detected they were fairly quick and also helped out with her travel costs (small town, treatment in the city).
Saying it's not a critical issue to some is not the same as 'screw you jack'. Heck I support medicare for all.
But that doesn't change the fact that I have much superior care now than I will have when I retire. Which is what I was arguing.
It would be easier to push through medicare for all if a good chunk of people don't see it as getting poorer health care. Simple political reality.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
