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

401–410 of 556 posts

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

#401

Post by DanBC »

judah wrote: post #80
potatopolis wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No. Those hospitals were not offering anything other than palliative care.

He had no brain! There's no possible treatment.

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

#402

Post by Consultant32452 »

ebalit wrote: post #362
aninhumer wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue it is coercive, but so is the property system underpinning the market in the first place. Adding a redistribution element to a system of private property doesn't introduce violent coercion, it merely changes how it is being used to allocate resources.

As Adam Smith wrote: "Civil government, in so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."

That quote doesn't mean what you think it means. Taken in context, that quote is talking about the origins of civil government and how it is often corrupted as stated in that quote. It is used as an argument for why there must be a separation of powers to ensure fair judgement and protect the property rights of both the poor and the wealthy.

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

#403

Post by DanBC »

judah wrote: post #98
judah wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" You are misinformed. The article I linked to showed that Italian doctors "said they would investigate different treatments."

You are misinformed. Here's the actual real court case: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/thomas-evans-v-alder-...

"But I came, on the consensus of every doctor from every country who had ever evaluated Alfie's condition, to the inevitable conclusion (following 7 days of evidence) that Alfie's brain had been so corroded by his Neurodegenerative Brain Disorder that there was simply no prospect of recovery. By the time I requested the updated MRI scan in February, the signal intensity was so bright that it revealed a brain that had been almost entirely wiped out. In simple terms the brain consisted only of water and CSF. The connective tissues and the white matter of the brain that had been barely visible 6 months earlier had now vanished entirely and with it the capacity for sight, hearing, taste, the sense of touch. All that could be offered by the Bambino Gesu Hospital in Rome was an alternative palliative care plan. An end of life plan. And so, on a true deconstruction of the issues, it is that that this case has been about: what is the appropriate end of life plan for Alfie?"

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

#404

Post by beagle3 »

fastball wrote: post #309
beagle3 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ba…

People go to "ER-or-equivalent". Immediately mentions a place that is not the same as ER that the US also has (clinics). As I said -- she was wrong to go to the ER. She lives in NJ. I know for a fact there are loads of clinics she could've gone to and been sent home with a clean bill of health for $50 copay.

I left NYC 5 years ago. But at the time I was living there, there was essentially no option other than an ER after 3pm (and very few before).

And my point is that the European system does not require you to make decisions in such a case. You just go and get checked without going bankrupt.

Where I live now I have 3 hospitals within 20 minute drive, one of which is walking distance, and 20 triage/clinic locations. I can go to any; I prefer the triage because they are quicker and nicer.

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

#405

Post by fsloth »

thanatropism wrote: post #152
fsloth wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm from a country that has public health and free college education (Finland). I much prefer paying bit more in taxes than having to have a bad conscience knowing that a lot of the people living in my country would not have the same options as myself. I'm not exceedingly wealthy but I make more than the statistical average employee.

Do you think this is related to Finland being much, much, much more homogeneous demographically than the US? I was going to say "ethnically homogeneous", but that isn't even the core of the issue. The US has populations with vastly divergent cultural backgrounds and outlooks (there's even a few types of white people); it's harder to argue that Hassidim in NYC should care for Crips in outer LA.

Uh, I have no idea when the concept of perceived fairness brakes down. But that's not the point in the end. Universal services like school and healthcare make sense because they improve the quality of life for everyone.

I suppose the core issue is that there is trust that the public funds are used in proper way.

I don't understand the 'US is too large to X' arguments. I thought the states are sufficiently independent to handle most things distinctively from the federal level. But I don't know enough of how US works to discuss this beyond it looks odd. Couldn't e.g Oregon implement something, and if it works, then other states could just copy the model. From the outside the concept of distinct state level governments sound like they could provide great platform for innovation and experimentation. But maybe they are bogged down in federal legislation and partisan politics?

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

#406

Post by fastball »

sykh wrote: post #354
fastball wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The explanation is that the US is huge and UK/Germany/Sweden/whoever is not. Efficiency doesn't scale proportionally to size, unfortunately.

That, even if true, does not support your argument. You need to show that the inefficiency in a universal care system in a country as large as the U.S is greater than the current system that we have. The evidence is that this is not true.

I don't need to show that, as I am not the one advocating a fundamental restructuring of the status quo.

You need to show that the policies implemented in other countries will continue to work efficiently at the scale of the US, as you are the one advocating that course of action.

"This policy worked well in [some place that is not the US]" just isn't good enough.

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

#407

Post by fortythirteen »

AstralStorm wrote: post #357
fortythirteen wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lower average cost of medical care All derived from figures that don't account for how much more you pay in taxes for that "free or cheap" healthcare.

Actually it is a perfectly visible item in budget. We pay less for whole of medical care than total US budget for just VA. Someone is paying for this in tax.

I think you misunderstand the statement. I wasn't referencing the comparison of the tax costs of different public healthcare systems. But while we're on that subject, I'm willing to bet that your VA comparison isn't per capita, or placed against GDP, rendering it useless.

What I was referencing was the per capita or per household total cost of healthcare. The comparisons that say western countries with universal healthcare have "lower costs" generally omit the increased tax burden.

If I make $100k a year, for example, and pay ~30% in taxes, but also pay ~$15k a year for total family medical expenses, including premiums, I'm still making out better than if I pay ~60% in taxes, but get "free" healthcare.

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

#409

Post by conanbatt »

monocasa wrote: post #247
conanbatt wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's foolish to believe the state is more efficient that private actors, that is just contrary to real life experience.

And yet, NHS is about twice as efficient than the US's system.

Is Medicare twice as efficient as private healthcare?

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

#410

Post by conanbatt »

mattmanser wrote: post #361
conanbatt wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course its not a sincere argument: I believe that you can believe it, but its insincere at least to yourself to say that the reason healthcare should be universally provided through government is for the poor. If you cared for the poor the argument is to make food stamps for healthcare services, not universal. Universal is also for yourself. So yes, it is disingenuous to say that which is best for your is also bes…

Your argument makes no sense. It's like garbage collection, it's just something the government provides as a service to all citizens. Whether it's regressive or progressive entirely depends on the tax used to pay for it. If everyone has to pay exactly the same, it's regressive, as poor people are impacted much more than rich people. If it's a proportion of income, it's progressive. In the UK our national insurance, w…

> In the UK our national insurance, which pays for our universal healthcare, social welfare and pensions, is actually a regressive tax, it's 12% on the first £46k you earn, then 2% after that (something like your first £6k is actually tax free). I don't know why people don't make a bigger deal out of this given that the NHS is suffering at the moment.

Are you arguing that NHS is not a benefit to the poor? Because its a regressive tax? So eliminating NHS is actually in benefit of the poorer classes.

Post reply on HN