Live data from Hacker News

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

economist.com

71–80 of 556 posts

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

#71

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…

As a healthy wealthy individual, more than happy to pay for sick people that cannot afford healthcare to become healthy. It is in my direct interest to have as little sick people as possible in the country where I live.

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

#72
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…

If you think the private healthcare system is immoral, you should take a look at the 100% government ran healthcare system that is the VA. You literally couldn't make up worse things than their administration has been caught doing with little or to consequence. If the VA is the best the US government can do, with some of the most sympathetic citizens, then it is incapable of doing better than our private system.

no reason why single-payer means government-run hospitals

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

#73

When the issue of universal health care comes up with regards to US policy I often see those emotional arguments pulling on the heart strings. Unfortunately, this is a distraction. I know this sounds cold, but it comes down to money. Healthcare in America is expensive. The problems appear to be commonly identified by various forms of research and including things like pricing inefficiencies of drugs, malpractice insu…

I don't think emotional arguments are a distraction, they're the whole point. This is a moral issue. Other countries manage to have universal healthcare and it doesn't break the bank. In fact, they spend less per person. The fiscal argument is the distraction.

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

#74
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…

> When a person gets a life threatening disease they ought not worry about whether or not their treatment will leave their family in penury.

You can't start any economic argument by saying that paying any cost is a must. You will get fleeced.

It is not true that universal healthcare pays for everything. The most expensive and experimental treatments will not be covered ever by the system, and it shouldnt.

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

#75

If you get cancer, would you rather be treated in the US or Europe? Survival rates are significantly higher in the US, so I know what I'd choose. And yeah, I'll pay more, too, because I want high quality doctors.

> Survival rates are significantly higher in the US

Citation needed.

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

#76

If you get cancer, would you rather be treated in the US or Europe? Survival rates are significantly higher in the US, so I know what I'd choose. And yeah, I'll pay more, too, because I want high quality doctors.

"Survival rates are significantly higher in the US, so I know what I'd choose."

Uh, something is going to kill me anyway. And the percentage difference isn't that high. I'd much rather have everyone state funded healthcare than a bit higher statistical chances for myself.

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

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think the private healthcare system is immoral, you should take a look at the 100% government ran healthcare system that is the VA. You literally couldn't make up worse things than their administration has been caught doing with little or to consequence. If the VA is the best the US government can do, with some of the most sympathetic citizens, then it is incapable of doing better than our private system.

The VA was a good system not too long ago, but the past couple decades has seen it get extremely underfunded in a starve the beast strategy. It used to be a black eye in the Republican's view of healthcare, but they sure fixed that.

What makes you think universal healthcare would be any different? If you recognize the VA's failings, and you blame Republicans for it, what's to stop them from doing it to every "good" idea you have?

If a few motivated politicians can ruin the lives of millions those politicians shouldn't have that power in the first place.

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

#78

If you get cancer, would you rather be treated in the US or Europe? Survival rates are significantly higher in the US, so I know what I'd choose. And yeah, I'll pay more, too, because I want high quality doctors.

Yes, let's turn a multifaceted, fairly objective article into a narrowminded, single-issue catchphrase, and introduce a false dichotomy that isn't even close to the content of the article. It seems like a lot of work just so you can keep beating your chest, or do you have an actual point to make?

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

#79
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…

If you think the private healthcare system is immoral, you should take a look at the 100% government ran healthcare system that is the VA. You literally couldn't make up worse things than their administration has been caught doing with little or to consequence. If the VA is the best the US government can do, with some of the most sympathetic citizens, then it is incapable of doing better than our private system.

This is one of the straw men that is often brought up. There are a million reasons why the VA is messed up, most of which have NOTHING to do with healthcare.

Congress has underfunded our troops for decades, related to healthcare and not. Something as simple as body armor is often purchased with personal money. A woman that works for me is high up in the Marines and I hear stories that disgust me. I do not know how Congress gets away with this. The stories are out there, but the American people seem to not give a you know what.

Please don't conflate the problems of the VA with Universal Healthcare.

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

#80
post #23

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 g…

Created my account just to respond to this. Alfie Evans was allowed to die based on unanimous, qualified medical evidence that was placed before the judiciary, which is entirely separate from the government. This ridiculous idea of "the government putting him to death" that's doing the rounds in the US media at the moment is disgustingly disingenuous and, what is worse, factually far from the mark. Alfie's parents, a…

>> every qualified, trained medical professional agreed

Except there were offers from international hospitals and doctors who disagreed and wanted to treat him. It's in the article I linked to.

And, as you point out, the UK legal system shut that down.

Post reply on HN