Both in rich and poor countries, universal health care brings huge benefits • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by sykh » Wed, May 02, 2018, 3:03 PM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #10

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…

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 people on TRICARE don’t seek to leave the system, do they? That’s a government run healthcare system.

Do Medicare recipients seek to leave it? That’s a government run healthcare system.

Universal healthcare can be implemented poorly but it doesn’t have to be. It can be done right. There are lots of examples of this.

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

#102

Post by glhaynes » Wed, May 02, 2018, 3:03 PM UTC

rukittenme wrote: post #77

monocasa wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So because Republicans will fuck up any government in an effort to prove that government doesn't work, we shouldn't have government?

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

#103

Post by Daishiman » Wed, May 02, 2018, 3:03 PM UTC

rukittenme wrote: post #77

monocasa wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not an argument. You can literally say that about very government institution.

Governments require somewhat good will from politicians and voters to do their job. Some news.

The only reason that system fails is because voters don't care about it. There's nothing exceptionally bad about the US that would not make it so.

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

#104

Post by mc32 » Wed, May 02, 2018, 3:04 PM UTC

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…

Universal healthcare benefits people with no coverage, which is good, but it also, in the case of nationalized healthcare, i.e. not privately run, leads also to lower quality care for people already with coverage where experience is people who can afford it, will when other than the most routine things, seek private care.

Given that, it looks like a two tiered system might work best. One which works like the current system and also another for the not quite indigent but can’t afford the current system (indigent are covered by Medicaid).

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

#105

Post by seszett » Wed, May 02, 2018, 3:04 PM UTC

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.

The court effectively ruled that 'further treatment for Alfie would be "unkind and inhumane"', that "continuing life-support treatment would not be in the best interests of Alfie" that it "is not lawful that such treatment continue".

This has little to do with universal healthcare, and is more a case of justice (purportedly - I'm not trying to be a judge myself here) protecting a children from its parents.

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

#106

Post by conanbatt » Wed, May 02, 2018, 3:04 PM UTC

seren wrote: post #34

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…

In countries with "universal healthcare", there is a big incentive from the organization paying the costs of exams to emphasis preventive care because ultimately, they won't run a deficit every year. And usually, it has a big bargaining power because its decide if if will reimburse the medicine or not. See for example : http://www.pmlive.com/pharma_news/france_agrees_lowest_soval... Similarly, there is a big incentiv…

> In countries with "universal healthcare", there is a big incentive from the organization paying the costs of exams to emphasis preventive care because ultimately, they won't run a deficit every year.

Does medicare do that? They stand to profit the most out of preventative care.

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

#107

Post by edanm » Wed, May 02, 2018, 3:04 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #44

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…

There's some serious mental gymnastics going on here to justify that the US spends 2x the next country per capita on health care expenditure and still doesn't manage to pay for all its citizens. Especially when the federal government has already taken all its worst customers (the old) and thrown them into a socialized pool (medicare) without anyone to balance out the risk. Wasn't there a writeup recently that wealth…

> There's some serious mental gymnastics going on here to justify that the US spends 2x the next country per capita on health care expenditure and still doesn't manage to pay for all its citizens.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this.

The US does spend a lot more, and doesn't cover everyone. If I understood the parent post, (part of what) it's saying that the US needs to focus on lowering costs, because otherwise, the fact that there is so much spending even now, is going to cause trouble. And more trouble than comparable countries, because the price in the US is so much higher.

I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with this, or what? Do you assume that if the US covered everyone, it would be cheaper? Would be great if you could clarify :)

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

#108

Post by rflrob » Wed, May 02, 2018, 3:04 PM UTC

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.

If you don’t get cancer, where would you rather live? Life expectancy is significantly higher in Europe for lower average cost of medical care. There’s not necessarily a conflict between checkups and chemo, and surely some of the difference is due to population-level differences in poverty, diet, and lifestyle. But it’s worth remembering that it can be rational to trade slightly worse specialty care for better general care.

Also, fwiw, what I’m reading (e.g. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/01/30/5819148...) suggests that US cancer survival is better than the rest of the developed world, but not significantly so.

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

#109

Post by fortythirteen » Wed, May 02, 2018, 3:04 PM UTC

fsloth wrote: post #26

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…

> Generally Economist is unashamedly political.

I have no problem with unashamedly political. I do have a problem with willful disingenuousness to promote ideological dogma.

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

#110

Post by stevenwoo » Wed, May 02, 2018, 3:04 PM UTC

rukittenme wrote: post #77

monocasa wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a single argument in favor of what appears to be some call to remove power from government. The easy counter example is Medicare - we have universal healthcare already for people over the age of 65. Would you say that because the VA doesn't work great in your judgement (people are already coming up with counterexamples within that thread) that we should shut down Medicare?