Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Both in rich and poor countries, universal health care brings huge benefits

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 556 posts

Re: Both in rich and poor countries, universal health care brings huge benefits

#21

Post by Adutude »

sykh wrote: post #6

When a person gets a life threatening disease they ought not worry about whether or not their treatment will leave their family in penury. This is especially so in a nation as wealthy as the U.S. The American healthcare system is immoral and I hope it drastically changes. Americans need to change their underlying notions of what it means to be a society. An author was once made fun of for suggesting that it takes a v…

I couldn't agree more. I don't think U.S. has a real progressive party, the choices are off the rails conservatism, or conservative lite. IMO, a progressive/liberal is concerned someone might go hungry, a conservative is concerned that they might miss out because someone got some food they didn't earn/deserve.

Re: Both in rich and poor countries, universal health care brings huge benefits

#23

Post by judah »

A problem with government-provided healthcare is that the government will have ultimate say over a patient's care.

This is not merely theoretical. Last week, Alfie Evans, a 2 year old, was put to death by the state-run healthcare in the UK.[0]

"Alfie's parents had offers of care in Rome, where doctors said they would investigate different treatments. Even Pope Francis appealed to the British government to let Alfie go. Yet the British government barred Alfie’s parents from taking him to Italy or anywhere else to try to save his life. Despite tests that showed Alfie was not in pain, the courts ruled — at the hospital’s urging — that moving Alfie anywhere else was unacceptable. That’s a lethal abuse of power and reminiscent of dictatorships that built walls around their countries to keep people in.[0]

Alfie’s parents watched while their son was held captive in a British hospital. The final decision about his care was not theirs to make. This core flaw in the British system has harmed other parents, too."

Where is the critical thinking on government-provided healthcare? Everyone looks at the sunshine and rainbows of "free" healthcare for everyone, without considering the serious questions of restricted freedom and heavy taxation involved.

[0]: http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/385533-thanks-to-bri...

Re: Both in rich and poor countries, universal health care brings huge benefits

#24

Post by patrickmay »

Universal health care doesn't require government coercion. Many more people in the US would have access to health care, including insurance for catastrophic events, if the state and federal governments stopped interfering in the supply side. The same groups that use force to prevent new hospitals being built, restrict the number of doctors, prevent nurses and nurse practitioners from treating many problems they're more than qualified to address, and disallow insurance being sold across state lines say that the solution to the problems they created is more government. It's almost like they have an ulterior motive.

Big government programs raise taxes and decrease liberty. To quote Penn Jillette, "Why not err on the side of a little more freedom?"

Re: Both in rich and poor countries, universal health care brings huge benefits

#25

Post by the1pato »

adaml_623 wrote: post #4

Just going to throw this out there. Non universal health care is analogous to half the roads in a city being toll roads. Society can still function and you can mostly get to where you're going but it's not close to efficient.

This isn't a great analogy. Many anti-sprawl urban planners actually say this is exactly what we should be doing to encourage more efficient (denser, more urban) development.

Re: Both in rich and poor countries, universal health care brings huge benefits

#26

Post by fsloth »

fortythirteen wrote: post #12

This article conflates public "essential health" services with universal, state-run healthcare. It also uses nondescript graphs, in image form and with no link to source data, to make sweeping, "correlation equals causation" points about universal health care and life expectancy. This is an article trying to make an ideological case rather than to discern truth.

"This is an article trying to make an ideological case rather than to discern truth."

Generally Economist is unashamedly political. That's what makes it so good - they don't try to hide the fact that they take a stand. They give you the facts and their arguments, and then it's up to the reader to digest it.

If you disagree with some of the points, I suggest you send them a letter. The letters section of Economist is one of the high points of the magazine as well - they publish rebuttals and corrections no matter how far they stray from the magazines core claim as long as the letter is well written and sanely argumentative.

Re: Both in rich and poor countries, universal health care brings huge benefits

#29

Post by pretzel »

ordinaryperson wrote: post #18

Universal health care is a euphemism for the poor and sick getting their medical care subsidized by the wealthy and healthy. Morally, caring for the sick seems like the right thing to do, but it's like when I hear Bernie Sanders call for "free college education": he doesn't mean free, he means the wealthy subsidizing it for others. Universal health care implies just distributed costs, but the focus should be on bring…

> Universal health care is a euphemism for the poor and sick getting their medical care subsidized by the wealthy and healthy.

Is it? I would have thought it is the commonwealth looking after the people that make it! Surely for countries with large sovereign wealth funds (especially those derived from the country's natural wealth), it makes sense to care for the people for which it is meant to provide!

The whole redistribution lens is a very specific way of looking at things.

Re: Both in rich and poor countries, universal health care brings huge benefits

#30

Post by DanBC »

ordinaryperson wrote: post #18

Universal health care is a euphemism for the poor and sick getting their medical care subsidized by the wealthy and healthy. Morally, caring for the sick seems like the right thing to do, but it's like when I hear Bernie Sanders call for "free college education": he doesn't mean free, he means the wealthy subsidizing it for others. Universal health care implies just distributed costs, but the focus should be on bring…

> Universal health care is a euphemism for the poor and sick getting their medical care subsidized by the wealthy and healthy.

You might have a point if the US system didn't cost taxpayers more for worse care. The US government pays more per capita for health care than other systems, but doesn't provide universal coverage.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...

Universal coverage provides more levers to control costs.

Post reply on HN