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

#271

Post by fastball » Wed, May 02, 2018, 4:00 PM UTC

walrus01 wrote: post #36

$5700 ER bill for an ice pack and refusal of treatment: https://www.vox.com/2018/5/1/17261488/er-expensive-medical-b... this is what's broken in America today.

Maybe part of the problem is the mindset "banged my head on a table, time for the ER"

???

If you're young and healthy and you lightly bang your head on a table, you don't need the ER! It sounds like she wasn't even concussed! Sure, get checked out by a doctor, but this isn't a life or death situation, so don't clog up ER triage with your BS.

That's like breaking your toe and calling an ambulance.

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

#272

Post by mikeash » Wed, May 02, 2018, 4:01 PM UTC

austincheney wrote: post #233

stevenwoo wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the healthcare marketplace of every civilized country of the world outside of the United States not count as research or an experiment in real life consequences?

No, I don't think these alternate examples are relevant. I suspect, and this is not my field of expertise, the largest differentiator is history. The US has been developing its health care system, uninterrupted, longer than other nations. It is much easier, politically, to build a great system if you start from scratch and have excellent examples at hand of what not to do as compared to modifying a deeply entrenched…

Other countries’ socialized systems didn’t just pop into existence fully formed. I’m pretty sure the health care industry in other countries is about as old as ours.

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

#273

Post by knieveltech » Wed, May 02, 2018, 4:01 PM UTC

SamReidHughes wrote: post #178

knieveltech wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if they aren't? Are there criteria that can be met that make the decision to leave someone injured on the side of the road morally sound?

We aren't on the side of any roads here.

Fine. Sidewalk, in the middle of a restaurant, in your livingroom, at the airport. Pick a location and then feel free to explain what selection criteria make ignoring the injuries of another moral.

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

#274

Post by Consultant32452 » Wed, May 02, 2018, 4:01 PM UTC

throwawayjava wrote: post #216

Consultant32452 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most economically efficient way to pay for B is to allow the free market to drive the cost of care so low that the person is either able to pay for it, or the cost through charity is trivial. This has the double benefit of not attempting to rectify one moral wrong (person does not receive care) by committing another (violent coercion by the state).

The point of this report is that the empirical evidence contradicts your hypothesis. These sorts of broad-strokes, ultra-rationalist arguments should be set aside whenever data is available.

Data is available on rapid price inflation that coincides with central planning initiatives in the US. Data also exists showing the systemic risks to nations created by these systems, such as the looming global demographic crisis created by the combination of social welfare systems and the baby boom.

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

#275

Post by losteric » Wed, May 02, 2018, 4:02 PM UTC

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #208

clarkevans wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems the public interest is subordinate to private interests and often times with immoral consequences. This perspective of public vs private interest is rather puzzling to me -- it's more a matter of short-term vs long-term thinking. In the long-term, it's in the private interest of those having sustainable companies to have a broad base of educated and healthy workers to employ. The short-term interest of any…

>This perspective of public vs private interest is rather puzzling to me -- it's more a matter of short-term vs long-term thinking. I actually think a long-term vs short-term view is insufficient. Let's step away from firms and take the case of the rich and the poor individual. For the poor individual it is in their interest in the short and long-term interest to have universal healthcare. For the rich individual, it…

> For the rich individual, it is in their short and long-term interest to prevent universal healthcare.

Not necessarily, although it does depend on the definition of "long-term":

* Reducing ER visits for preventable issues lowers hospital costs

* Higher demand for supplies should lower costs

* A larger market creates stronger incentives to research and address rarer diseases

* Eliminating individual medical debt reduces crime rates, increases education/competition

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

#276

Post by beagle3 » Wed, May 02, 2018, 4:02 PM UTC

patrickg_zill wrote: post #246

Skeptic's questions: 1. How many are aware that Britain's NHS, if run as well as Spain's healthcare system, would kill 10,000 fewer patients each year due to better treatment? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-world-ranking-... and http://www.cityam.com/270171/nhs-world-class-if-you-ignore-i... (3rd to last paragraph) 2. I can get an MRI in the USA within 3-5 days (sometimes next day), virtually anywhere…

> 2. I can get an MRI in the USA within 3-5 days (sometimes next day), virtually anywhere in the country.

AFAIK you can do that anywhere in Europe as well, provided that you pay out of pocket, or that you have purchased extra coverage to do that -- the cost of which is usually a fraction of similar coverage in the US.

(Also AFAIK, you weren't able to pay out of pocket in Canada for that 20 years ago - I don't know if that has changed).

> If you were diagnosed with a possible brain tumor/cancer requiring an MRI to confirm, would the 50 to 90-day difference in MRI and diagnosis result in a measurable difference in outcome, if you did in fact have a tumor?

The 50-90 days number quoted is, AFAIK, related to non-urgent things. I know two people who got it within 24 hours when there was suspicion of a tumor.

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

#277

Post by Frondo » Wed, May 02, 2018, 4:03 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #173

rogerb wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a simple thought experiment that helps: - an american citizen break his leg, he is not insured. Do you A: let him die B: take care of him ? if your answer is A - you are a terrible person, but you hold a consistent position. if your answer is B - the only question that remains is what is the most economic, efficient way to take care of this person ? b is universal health care. if you think you can do A with e…

The most economically efficient way to pay for B is to allow the free market to drive the cost of care so low that the person is either able to pay for it, or the cost through charity is trivial. This has the double benefit of not attempting to rectify one moral wrong (person does not receive care) by committing another (violent coercion by the state).

Taxation is not violent coercion by the state and it is disingenuous to describe the former as the latter.

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

#278

Post by stevenwoo » Wed, May 02, 2018, 4:03 PM UTC

austincheney wrote: post #233

stevenwoo wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the healthcare marketplace of every civilized country of the world outside of the United States not count as research or an experiment in real life consequences?

No, I don't think these alternate examples are relevant. I suspect, and this is not my field of expertise, the largest differentiator is history. The US has been developing its health care system, uninterrupted, longer than other nations. It is much easier, politically, to build a great system if you start from scratch and have excellent examples at hand of what not to do as compared to modifying a deeply entrenched…

That's true but have an example in the US, universal healthcare is provided by the US government, if you are over 65, it's called Medicare for people who have paid into the system while under 65 and a few others. People over 65 are free to buy insurance and pay for their own healthcare, thanks to ACA.

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

#279

Post by ordinaryradical » Wed, May 02, 2018, 4:03 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #222

fogzen wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Law is violent coercion. This isn’t libertarian philosophy class, it’s the real world. In many places in the real world, universal government insurance is already in place. This isn’t some hypothetical.

The fact that some people or nations behave in a particular way does not in any way determine whether that behavior is moral.

States in and of themselves aren’t moral under your framework because they can only exist by threat and use of force.

But some of us are interested in solutions for the real world instead of the debating the merits of unfeasible utopias.

I, too, would enjoy a stateless peaceful utopia of equitable commerce, but that has zero bearing on how we should decide public policy. Foraging for utopias is the same kind of naïveté Marxists trot out again and again and were it ever enacted at scale it would lead to the same kind of human suffering.

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

#280

Post by beagle3 » Wed, May 02, 2018, 4:04 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #271

walrus01 wrote: post #36

$5700 ER bill for an ice pack and refusal of treatment: https://www.vox.com/2018/5/1/17261488/er-expensive-medical-b... this is what's broken in America today.

Maybe part of the problem is the mindset "banged my head on a table, time for the ER" ??? If you're young and healthy and you lightly bang your head on a table, you don't need the ER! It sounds like she wasn't even concussed! Sure, get checked out by a doctor, but this isn't a life or death situation, so don't clog up ER triage with your BS. That's like breaking your toe and calling an ambulance.

Maybe. But possible one in a hundred times, the "banged head on table" could lead to complications. I'm familiar with such a case.

Somehow, everywhere in the developed world except the US, people can go to the ER-or-equivalent (many places have 24-hour clinics/triage centers that would send you to an ER only if needed) after they've banged their heads, and 99% of the time be told "go home, it's fine" without being bankrupt. I would say the problem is with how the US healthcare system is run.