71–80 of 137 posts
Giving free healthcare is a good step, but the important question is how good will it be and how much will be covered. Brazil has 100% of its population (210M people) covered by free, single-payer, universal healthcare, resulting in a life expectancy of 75 years (US is 79, Japan and Switzerland with 83 IIRC). But your experience can vary dramatically. It all depends on how much money is actually being put on it (in h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the taxes that makes everyone like the Scandinavian countries. If Chile can have government programs with comparable return or results to the Scandinavian countries at a fraction of the cost then they're a hell of a lot more interesting from a policy perspectives. Comparing governments based on taxes they levy is like comparing modes of transportation based on the amount of fuel they consume.
> Comparing governments based on taxes they levy is like comparing modes of transportation based on the amount of fuel they consume. I don't think this is a very good analogy. We compare modes of transportation based on the amount of fuel they consume all the time. Unless I'm missing your point? And not everyone likes the Scandinavian countries. They are blessed by very homogeneous populations, in a region unscathed…
Also, don't confuse low population density with high natural resources. The US for example get's for more wealth from oil than Norway. Norway just has a tiny population (5.2M).
Further, the US has a much wider range of natural resources including vast coal deposits, gold, diamonds, etc.
>> The health care plan, part of the government’s 2018-19 budget presented on Thursday, would offer 100 million families up to 500,000 rupees, or about $7,860, of coverage each year. Thats roughly $800B dollars, or over 30% of India's GDP. What am I missing? Most people won't participate? EDIT: according to the article, the Finance Ministry has allocated $314 million (or 4 hundredths of a percent of the theoretical m…
500M people times $7860/yr is $3.93 trillion (the max possible coverage). But if only $314M is authorized, the average person will receive only 314M/500M, or about 63 cents.
The govt. of Andhra Pradesh (a state in India) has pioneered a state backed insurance program several years ago with reasonable success ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarogyasri ). The problem however with these programs is that corruption within the healthcare industry is still endemic and doctors create fake diagnoses and perform unnecessary surgeries on patients to get their reimbursements from Aarogya-sri. If th…
Definitely Aarogyasri in AP saved millions of Lives. Current administration tried to remove the program since its not introduced by them and can't take credit for. So they are trying to kill it slowly (By removing people from program, cutting benefits etc). I wonder what will happen to this Free Health insurance program when central government changes next time.
The previous government even though was corrupt at least did something for the poor. I personally witnessed AROGYASHRI being used by the poor and the amount of stability it bought to their daily lives.
I also agree that there was lot of corruption in the program. If the choice is between saving the lives of the poor with corruption vs letting them die without I would choose the former any day. After all, the healthcare system in the US is filled with corrupt participants.
Let’s us not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
P.S:- I am not a citizen of India or don’t have any Indian roots but I lived there for a few years doing volunteer social work to help the poor.
[1] thread about this https://twitter.com/Memeghnad/status/959026718722768896
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost every universal healthcare system is has some degree of mix of private and public. Norway is on the far extreme with it's strict restrictions on private healthcare. Almost every other country has private healthcare insurance as at least an option. The question tends to be how much you end up contributing towards public healthcare if you take out a private option - ranging from no difference (you pay the same t…
Strict restrictions? I can chose whatever hospital I want and the government will pay for it regardless as long as a GP has referred me to them. If you want you can just pay out of your pocket as well without going through a GP. There is even a portal where you can search for your ailment and choose hospital (private or public) based on their waiting lists. https://helsenorge.no/velg-behandlingssted The government al…
And nothing wrong with that, I actually support that model, just like in Switzerland, where healthcare is private, but mandated by the government and heavily regulated (with less-regulated private complimentary insurance options).
It allows for innovation and competition between providers, without the harm to users due to the asymmetry of power.
Oh, and births are free.
If something like this is implemented, I'm curious to see what it does to prices - will a heart surgery continue to cost less than $2,000?
Healthcare seems like a supply problem to me, not a demand one. Where healthcare is affordable, demand should be stable year-to-year. It seems like what's needed is more doctors and devices, not more ways to pay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strict restrictions? I can chose whatever hospital I want and the government will pay for it regardless as long as a GP has referred me to them. If you want you can just pay out of your pocket as well without going through a GP. There is even a portal where you can search for your ailment and choose hospital (private or public) based on their waiting lists. https://helsenorge.no/velg-behandlingssted The government al…
Restrictions aren't just on users, but on providers as well. If you don't see restrictions as an user, it's because most of the restrictions are on the providers. And nothing wrong with that, I actually support that model, just like in Switzerland, where healthcare is private, but mandated by the government and heavily regulated (with less-regulated private complimentary insurance options). It allows for innovation a…
Also: are there any places that charge for births???? That sounds ridiculous and insane to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Restrictions aren't just on users, but on providers as well. If you don't see restrictions as an user, it's because most of the restrictions are on the providers. And nothing wrong with that, I actually support that model, just like in Switzerland, where healthcare is private, but mandated by the government and heavily regulated (with less-regulated private complimentary insurance options). It allows for innovation a…
Yeah, the the post I replied to claimed there were restrictions on private clinics specifically, but the public clinics/hospitals have to follow the same rules. Also: are there any places that charge for births???? That sounds ridiculous and insane to me.
Then the entire US healthcare system will sound ridiculous and insane to you :)
And, to be honest, it is. I have American friends who had accidents while in developing countries (broke an arm in Costa Rica) and were puzzled that they were treated and didn't have to pay anything, or very little (broke feet in Croatia).