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

81–90 of 556 posts

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

#81

Post by Consultant32452 »

nisa wrote: post #15

There are lots of problems you can avoid when you are able to regularly get a checkup from your doctor. Also not everything is only a cold and having someone who can check early for complications might save a lot of lives or prevent people from far worse conditions. Last but not least: Access to mental health services like cognitive behavior therapy that replace or supplement only eating pills might help a lot of fol…

What are your thoughts on this Oregon study which showed no significant effect on health outcomes for people who were given Medicaid vs the uninsured?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/02/oregon...

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

#82

Post by kbcool »

programmarchy wrote: post #22

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.

Europe these days, at least I'd be treated like a human being and not a cash cow.

Survival rates in the USA were better in the 1960s but most of the OECD now has much lower mortality rates from a diagnosis of cancer than the USA. One exception is the UK but the margin is very narrow.

What the USA is good at is over-treatment which can extend life expectancy of a cancer patient a little bit (days, weeks on average) but you could argue the quality of life is not there. This is a direct a bi-product of an extremely inefficient health system which is designed to make as much money as possible for all of the participants rather than treat patients.

As a percentage of GDP health care spending in the USA is completely out of control.

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

#83

Post by samthecoy »

programmarchy wrote: post #22

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.

"Our results suggest that cancer care in the United States did not always avert deaths compared to Western Europe, and when it did avert deaths, it often did so at substantial cost."

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/pdf/10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0...

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

#84

Post by edanm »

Pharylon wrote: post #62
patrickmay wrote: post #24

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 mo…

Penn Jillette also believes global warming is a conspiracy. No nation with free market health insurance has universal healthcare, so as the person making an extraordinary claim, it's on you to come up with proof.

> Penn Jillette also believes global warming is a conspiracy.

Ummm, no he doesn't? This was something he believed in the past but has since changed his mind about.

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

#86

Post by monocasa »

conanbatt wrote: post #74
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…

> 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.

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

... in an open market.

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

#87

Post by kbcool »

calcifer wrote: post #75
programmarchy wrote: post #22

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.

They're not. Any source since the 1980s will tell you pretty much every OECD nation has higher survival rates than the USA.

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

#88

Post by sdwa »

judah wrote: post #70
matthewmacleod wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Please don't spread misinformation about this particular topic.

A UK court ruled he could not seek treatment elsewhere, and was ordered off life support. That's not misinformation, it's reality. edit Downvoted for citing a verifiable fact. This is a remarkably emotional, politically-charged thread. Comments and voting in this thread are driven not by logic and reason, but by emotion and political bias.

There was no treatment to be had in Rome, they were just going to hook him up to a life support machine. The doctors in Rome, being doctors, are professionals, so they never once suggested they would be able to cure or even treat his condition.

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

#89

Post by conanbatt »

Pharylon wrote: post #73
austincheney wrote: post #51

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.

> I don't think emotional arguments are a distraction, they're the whole point. This is a moral issue.

I find the moral argument to be disingenuous. It is immoral to make poor people pay a tax that cure the diseases of rich people.

"Nobody should go hungry, so everyone should be able to eat anywhere they want and not look at the tab".

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

#90

Post by judah »

theBobBob wrote: post #47
judah wrote: 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…

The fact that the healthcare was paid for by the Government had absolutely nothing to do with that case. A healthcare decision had to be made for a patient that was not able to make the decision themselves. When the doctors thought that the decision that the parents were making on behalf of the child was against the best interests of the patient they asked the courts to make a judgement of what should be done. The sa…

>> A healthcare decision had to be made for a patient that was not able to make the decision themselves

Yes - it was made for the patient against the patient's legal guardians - his own mother and father. The government-run system overruled the patient's legal guardians.

This is precisely the issue at hand: a loss of freedom resulting from a healthcare system ultimately ruled by the government itself. The government has final say over healthcare decisions.

Post reply on HN