Live data from Hacker News

High US health care spending explained by its high material standard of living

randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com

11–20 of 72 posts

Re: High US health care spending explained by its high material standard of living

#11

So his claim that the us has a higher standard of living is based on it having a higher AIC. But does this take into account that countries with higher taxation and hence public expenditure could reduce the need for households to spend money on public goods/services?

Yes it does. This is explained in the fifth paragraph, pretty close to the top of the article.

(Unfortunately that's an embedded image of text, so I can't quote it. But here's a link: https://randomcriticalanalysis.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/s... )

Re: High US health care spending explained by its high material standard of living

#12

Is it possible that healthcare in the US is a "superior good" (definition in article) because the lower quartiles can't afford proper care and as they become wealthier they progress from zero care, to basic plans that don't cover nearly what they should, to plans equivalent to the care people receive elsewhere in the world as a right of citizenship?

No it's not. As it relates to this article, the relevant metric is whether healthcare is a superior good relative to GDP/capita. Those measurements are based on country data, including countries that have socialized medicine.

Here's a link to the embedded image of text that explains this (which you can also find in the 3rd paragraph or so): https://randomcriticalanalysis.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/s...

Re: High US health care spending explained by its high material standard of living

#13
Slightly off topic but is there is a such thing as universal affordable good healthcare?

I've talked to a few U.S. citizens that worked abroad who said healthcare in European countries is universally available but the demand outstrips the supply causing longer wait times to get treated than in the U.S. and that they prefer the U.S. system. These are of course people who have good jobs in the U.S. with company provided coverage. Is that true?

Is there any system that can both cover everyone without making healthcare worse for people who already have good coverage?

Re: High US health care spending explained by its high material standard of living

#14

Is it possible that healthcare in the US is a "superior good" (definition in article) because the lower quartiles can't afford proper care and as they become wealthier they progress from zero care, to basic plans that don't cover nearly what they should, to plans equivalent to the care people receive elsewhere in the world as a right of citizenship?

My immediate thought too.

Re: High US health care spending explained by its high material standard of living

#15

Is it possible that healthcare in the US is a "superior good" (definition in article) because the lower quartiles can't afford proper care and as they become wealthier they progress from zero care, to basic plans that don't cover nearly what they should, to plans equivalent to the care people receive elsewhere in the world as a right of citizenship?

No it's not. As it relates to this article, the relevant metric is whether healthcare is a superior good relative to GDP/capita . Those measurements are based on country data, including countries that have socialized medicine. Here's a link to the embedded image of text that explains this (which you can also find in the 3rd paragraph or so): https://randomcriticalanalysis.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/s...

[deleted]

Re: High US health care spending explained by its high material standard of living

#16

Slightly off topic but is there is a such thing as universal affordable good healthcare? I've talked to a few U.S. citizens that worked abroad who said healthcare in European countries is universally available but the demand outstrips the supply causing longer wait times to get treated than in the U.S. and that they prefer the U.S. system. These are of course people who have good jobs in the U.S. with company provide…

[deleted]

Re: High US health care spending explained by its high material standard of living

#17

Slightly off topic but is there is a such thing as universal affordable good healthcare? I've talked to a few U.S. citizens that worked abroad who said healthcare in European countries is universally available but the demand outstrips the supply causing longer wait times to get treated than in the U.S. and that they prefer the U.S. system. These are of course people who have good jobs in the U.S. with company provide…

The Australian system is far from perfect but does come some way to solving this. It is effectively 2 tiered:

1) Public Medicare, the publicly funded system available to everybody. 2) Private insurance, paid for by the individual and tailored to their needs.

To pay for the public system everybody pays a Medicare levy as part of their income tax. The levy is coarsely means tested. If you have private insurance then this levy is reduced somewhat.

The real critical differentiation between the public (Medicare) and private offerings are that any services deemed as elective in nature (ie, non life threatening conditions such as surgeries to treat injuries, etc) can be completed by the public system but there is a wait list which can often be quite long. If you have private insurance then you can get in very quickly with the surgeon you want.

Having private in no way restricts your usage of the public system so there is no downside to having private except that it costs more. There are also fee structures in place to encourage people to take up private when they're younger and the saving on the medicare levy.

As I said, it's far from perfect, but the 2 tiers offer a high level of customized cover for people willing and able to afford it while offering an acceptable level of cover for those who can't.

Re: High US health care spending explained by its high material standard of living

#18

Slightly off topic but is there is a such thing as universal affordable good healthcare? I've talked to a few U.S. citizens that worked abroad who said healthcare in European countries is universally available but the demand outstrips the supply causing longer wait times to get treated than in the U.S. and that they prefer the U.S. system. These are of course people who have good jobs in the U.S. with company provide…

Well to begin with, the availability of free universal health care - like the NHS helps ensure a pretty competitive private healthcare market.

For example, I know that if my wife becomes pregnant or if there are complications we won't be hit with thousands or tens of thousands in medical bills on leaving the hospital.

However on the flip side, it's very difficult to find a decent NHS dentist where we live, so we'll pay about £300-600 in dental checkups or dental work per annum.

Just by having the NHS provide dental or any medical care there is downward pricing pressure on private competitors so however flawed a system like the NHS is it certainly has a very important pricing function even if you choose to go completely private.

Re: High US health care spending explained by its high material standard of living

#19

Strange, this neglects that portion of health care spend that is accounted for by profits, by marketing expenses and administrative/billing bloat that ensues. It also neglects that for its massively higher spend 10% of Americans aren't covered and therefore don't receive preventative care yielding massively higher final costs, and it doesn't take into account the WHO ranks the US system as 31st in the world dramatica…

What do you mean "neglects"? Did the author somehow remove that from his numbers? The WHO ranks the US low because 62.5% of their score is a measure of inequality. Only 37.5% of their score is related to actual health care measures (health outcomes and patient satisfaction). The US scores #1 on patient satisfaction. http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf

Note: World Health Organization report is from 2000

Re: High US health care spending explained by its high material standard of living

#20
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean "neglects"? Did the author somehow remove that from his numbers? The WHO ranks the US low because 62.5% of their score is a measure of inequality. Only 37.5% of their score is related to actual health care measures (health outcomes and patient satisfaction). The US scores #1 on patient satisfaction. http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf

Note: World Health Organization report is from 2000

Do you have something more current?
Post reply on HN