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

471–480 of 556 posts

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

#471

Post by endtime »

ryandrake wrote: post #329
rukittenme wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yes. Everyone who disagrees with me has a limited mindset. You could have used your open mind to read about a European (within this comment thread) who is having trouble with "the right" in his country: > This is a principal reason why the US was crossed off my list of countries where I would work and live. I fight against the privatization that is occurring within healthcare in my native country, Iceland. We used…

How many people out there would honestly be willing to trade their universal healthcare system for a US style system?

Alfie Evans' parents probably would...as would some of the people waiting months to get a simple MRI.

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

#472

Post by Andre_Wanglin »

sykh wrote: post #438
Andre_Wanglin wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anyone refuse free money? Are you sure you understand the parent's point? They are taking the money but using private networks, which indicates they prefer private providers.

In the absence of Medicare/Medicaid there would not be universal coverage for the elderly. The elderly do not advocate dismantling this coverage. The coverage is a government program. We are in agreement that a U.S. government program can cover lots of people and maintain the property that those people don’t want to the program to be dismantled. It’s not, then, hard to imagine everyone being covered by such a program…

I did not support the ACA but I use the healthcare exchange because it is in my best interest to do so. I get free money from others to pay for my family's health insurance. In fact, I get a 100% subsidy. But the reason I get a 100% subsidy is because I am affluent enough to live comfortably on only a small portion of my income and funnel the rest into tax-advantaged accounts that reduce my AGI to a fraction of my actual income. It would thus not be in my interest to advocate the ending of the ACA. This is the same reason the elderly (who are the wealthiest cohort) do not wish to see Medicare/Medicaid dismantled. But is this what's best for society? Everyone gaming the system to benefit at the expense of everyone else?

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

#473

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#474

Post by landryraccoon »

ibeckermayer wrote: post #360
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…

My problem with you isn’t that you want to fund long term interests, my problem with you is that you want to force me to fund your idea of long term interests with your preferred long term fund (i.e. whatever our moronic legislators can cook up). It’s not about the goals, it’s about the coercion.

To frame it in a libertarian context :

I would assume that if you live on someone’s land, you would agree that their property rights mean you must pay rent, otherwise you must move.

The government is sovereign over the the land of the nation. If you live there, you must pay “rent” in the form of taxes. You aren’t respecting the property rights of the nation otherwise. You can always move.

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

#475

Post by judah »

DanBC wrote: post #395
judah wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> No, the medical professionals, i.e. doctors do. The UK doctors punted, agreed. But Italian doctors believed different treatments were warranted. The Italian government gave the boy citizenship. In a private healthcare system, the parents would be free to pursue that. But in the state-run system of the UK, there was no such freedom. Alfie Evans died last Monday.

The Italian doctors agreed treatment was futile. They were only offering end of life care. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/thomas-evans-v-alder-...

I was indeed misinformed. Reading several news articles, not one mention that all that was left of his brain was water and spinal fluid. I only see that in the court transcripts, and that assessment was done from brain scans over several months.

Given this new evidence, I change my opinion on this: the state-run healthcare did offer the best advice.

(The question of state-run medical systems restricting freedom still applies here, even though the freedom would simply have been different end-of-life care.)

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

#476

Post by beagle3 »

fastball wrote: post #467
beagle3 wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has less than 400M people, the EU has more than 500M, so you are factually wrong. The EU is divided to states, just like the US; healthcare is locally managed with reciprocity between the EU members. Which gives you a model for a scalable US implementation if you desire. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are arguing against facts. The US is smaller population wise.

I didn't say that the US was larger than the EU... I said the US is significantly larger than any one country in the EU, and each country in the EU has its own health care system. What is being discussed in this thread is a US-wide health care system, which is definitely not equivalent to what is currently happening in the EU.

Each country in the EU has its own health care system, but in most senses they are regulated EU wide, and reciprocate with each other - if a French person needs urgent care in Italy, he will get it, and the distinct single payer systems will do the accounting. Said French person can also legally move to Italy, and will be covered by Italian single payer system from day one.

The EU has only one medical "FDA"-like authority, which is - in fact - a huge problem for the UK post Brexit because they have to set one up for themselves now.

The EU has, effectively, a EU-wide health care system. It is more federated than the US, by virtue of only recently become a union. It is also less uniform because of different history, tradition, and languages. These are things that make it harder to build than a US-wide, and yet, it works and is significantly more efficient than the US, while catering to more people.

Of course the existing US-wide health care system is not equivalent; it is dysfunctional. You claim, but fail to demonstrate, that a functional one cannot be built, despite example in the EU that faces harder objective conditions.

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

#477

Post by gremlinsinc »

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…

By your comment then we should get rid of social security and Medicare as well, would you agree?

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

#478

Post by nojvek »

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…

Social security age keeps on rising as baby boomers retire.

America is the wealthiest country on the planet, yet the country where most people go bankrupt or commit suicide because they can’t afford healthcare costs. US spends astronomic amounts on weapons development than keeping its citizens healhy and happy.

Fermi was right. We’ll eventually destroy ourselves before we find another intelligent civilization. May be the great filter is that no one in the universe got healthcare right and they vanished. /s

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

#479

Post by slantedview »

SilasX wrote: post #387
slantedview wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Costs are high, largely, because we have a fragmented mess of a system rather than a single payer.

How do you know that that, rather than something else, accounts for the high costs? Edit: for example, Scott Alexander's point about US providers feeling they have to provide expensive treatment just to cover the possibility of a lawsuit: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost-... Edit2: Also, Germany, the Netherlands, Singapore, and several others have typical cost savings but aren't single paye…

Costs are high for many reasons, but having for profit companies whose own overheads far exceed those of public options (such as Medicare) are the the most obvious contributor.

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

#480

Post by fortythirteen »

DanBC wrote: post #456
fortythirteen wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misinterpret or spin the data from your link. Look again and you'll see that, as far as compulsory spending goes the US and UK spend roughly the same percentage of GDP on "healthcare". What is "healthcare" as defined in this PR piece from the UK government? Where do factors like average wait time to see a specialist or have surgery weigh in? I could take those same numbers and say, "The United States does a bette…

> Look again and you'll see that, as far as compulsory spending goes the US and UK spend roughly the same percentage of GDP on "healthcare" Yes, that's the point. The US government spends more on healthcare, but that huge spend doesn't cover the whole population. > "The United States does a better job of assisting it's poorer citizens into the highest quality healthcare in the world, Why does the US have such poor mo…

> But also Alfie had his own legal representation.

What?! How does an infant/toddler receive legal representation arguing for the plug to be pulled, outside of the wishes of his parents?! That is the very definition of authoritarianism.

> He wouldn't have got anything like this in the US.

Absolute nonsense spread by someone who has no knowledge of the American system. A child like Alfie is given free medical care from one of many charity hospitals with some of the best doctors in the world, and other charities house the family, for no cost, during treatment. You know, like the Vatican offered, and the parents accepted, but apparently you're government decided it was time for Alfie to die.

Post reply on HN