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

541–550 of 556 posts

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

#541

Post by mattmanser »

conanbatt wrote: post #410
mattmanser wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, I replied and rapidly edited out a few words of my original reply to try and make it clearer, but seem to have done the opposite. The last sentence initially started with "Interestingly". My original meaning of the last paragraph was "here is an interesting, related, factoid. The UK happens to have a regressive tax to pay for the NHS".

My main point is that governments are free to provide the same service to rich and poor without that being regressive or disproportionately favouring the rich. For example, bin collection, policing, national defence, fire safety, etc.

A universal health service can simply be another collective service. If you want more because you're rich, in the UK we also have private healthcare services you can pay for, much like you can pay for a cleaner in addition to your bin collections or a body guard in addition to the police or national defence or pay to install fire suppression in addition to the national fire service.

What makes it regressive or not is how it is taxed for.

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

#542

Post by fortythirteen »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #491
fortythirteen wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fro…

> 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. So, arguing the doctors' point of view of a terminally ill child's best interests is "authoritarianism", and arguing the parents' point of view is not? OK. Fortunately English law disagrees, and believes that children are not their…

Who in their right mind think's a toddler's best interest is to die?

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

#543

Post by fortythirteen »

DanBC wrote: post #507
fortythirteen wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fro…

> How does an infant/toddler receive legal representation arguing for the plug to be pulled, outside of the wishes of his parents?! The child is not property. The child is a human, and has human rights. Those rights are protected. The child has his own independent legal representation to look after its best interests. This system has been tested by international courts -in Europe- and they've found it works to protec…

> The child is not property. The child is a human, and has human rights. Those rights are protected. The child has his own independent legal representation to look after its best interests.

How humane of your government to decide that a toddler must starve to death.

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

#544

Post by oblio »

fbunau wrote: post #60

In my country we do have single payer health care, but I wouldn't step foot into a state hospital unless I would have a terminal disease. The infrastructure is old and crumbling, people get infections during operations and walk out more sick than they entered. Sometimes you are asked to bring your own medicine, and basic medical supplies because hospitals don't provide you with anything. The system is overcrowded and…

Dude, you're honestly comparing the Romanian health care system with one from a developed country? I'm also Romanian, cut the crap.

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

#545

Post by DanBC »

fortythirteen wrote: post #543
DanBC wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How does an infant/toddler receive legal representation arguing for the plug to be pulled, outside of the wishes of his parents?! The child is not property. The child is a human, and has human rights. Those rights are protected. The child has his own independent legal representation to look after its best interests. This system has been tested by international courts -in Europe- and they've found it works to protec…

> The child is not property. The child is a human, and has human rights. Those rights are protected. The child has his own independent legal representation to look after its best interests. How humane of your government to decide that a toddler must starve to death.

Have you ever had a naso-gastric tube fitted? It's not pleasant. Doing this in order to prolong life when the case is medically futile is cruel.

Also, it's far better that the hospital has to go to the courts to get permission to do this than the situation in the US: the doctors announce their plan and the parents then have to go to court to stop it happening.

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

#546

Post by DanBC »

fortythirteen wrote: post #542
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. So, arguing the doctors' point of view of a terminally ill child's best interests is "authoritarianism", and arguing the parents' point of view is not? OK. Fortunately English law disagrees, and believes that children are not their…

Who in their right mind think's a toddler's best interest is to die?

Who in their right mind thinks it's okay to subject a dying child to severe pain and discomfort in order to keep him alive for a few extra days?

American religious fundamentalists, that's who: https://twitter.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/99200573272698880...

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

#547

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

fortythirteen wrote: post #542
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. So, arguing the doctors' point of view of a terminally ill child's best interests is "authoritarianism", and arguing the parents' point of view is not? OK. Fortunately English law disagrees, and believes that children are not their…

Who in their right mind think's a toddler's best interest is to die?

Simple answer to your question: It is for _doctors_ to assess if there is any realistic hope of recovery from an illness and if not, when palliative care is the best option. They're not perfect but it's the best that we have.

Terminal illness happens to us all eventually, you have to face that. It happens to children too sometimes, you have to face that too.

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

#548

Post by Hozzle »

monocasa wrote: post #41
merpnderp wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.

The VA is much the same as all the other US healthcare setups. A system with the controls taken off, trying to operate in a jungle of different systems and bureaucracies.

IN most nations with a VA-style (Beveridge) setup, there is great media interest in the least failing or hint of scandal. And they mean politicians lose a lot of votes. The VA hasn't enjoyed that feedback system until recently.

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

#549

Post by Hozzle »

imglorp wrote: post #174
e40 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the straw men that is often brought up. There are a million reasons why the VA is messed up, most of which have NOTHING to do with healthcare. Congress has underfunded our troops for decades, related to healthcare and not. Something as simple as body armor is often purchased with personal money. A woman that works for me is high up in the Marines and I hear stories that disgust me. I do not know how Co…

I'm curious why there are more than one public health system. There's the VA, the IHS (Indian Health Services), and of course medicare/medicaid. Why are these not all the same system? It's not like we're different species.... edit, If this is a benefits/paperwork thing, then shouldn't that be separate from the care provider network?

Fun fact: Those systems cost more tax money than most other developed nations spend on full UHC. Either per person or as a per cent of GDP.

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

#550

Post by Hozzle »

ScottBurson wrote: post #430
chimeracoder wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, because it's free, but 1/3 of Medicare recipients opt to receive their coverage through private insurers that typically add on additional coverage They don't simply add on coverage; they replace it. Most people on Medicare Advantage don't opt for coverage above what Medicare itself can provide - they simply receive their benefits from a private entity instead of Medicare, because Medicare provides such a bad ex…

You've repeated this claim in several places so I'll just link to my rebuttal: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16979565 While you may have a good argument against a "single-manager" health care system, this doesn't seem like an argument against a single- payer system. In fairness, I guess a lot of existing universal-coverage systems, such as the UK's NHS, are also single-manager (someone will correct me if I'm m…

The NHS is what is called a Beveridge style system. I think that is what you mean by single managed. Similar systems are used in Spain, the Nordics, etc. They are often managed at local levels though and may include private hospitals and treatment that gets reimbursed by the payer at the same level as public ones. The VA is an example of this type of system although other nations have far more oversight and performance control than the VA does.

A competing setup is the Bismarck style of insurance company administered management, either for-profit or non-profit. Germany, the Nederland's, Switzerland, etc runs this sort of system. Always with a lot of legislation and safeguards to ensure that people do not fall outside the system. It is similar to the US employer-provided insurance setups.

Other systems are National Insurance, as used in Canada and Japan. Similar to Medicare. Canada is fairly unique in its hostility to private provision.

And then there is out of pocket, like rural Africa does it. That's basically like being uninsured and not qualifying for Medicaid.

Thing is, the US accumulated massive bureaucracy and costs by h\trying to run every system at the same time with little attempt at standardization and lots of billing and gatekeeping. Everyone else picked one system and stuck with it, letting private providers fill in the gaps. (Except Canada for the last)

Post reply on HN