Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bloomberg Healthiest Country Index – 2019 edition

bloombergquint.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 82 posts

Re: Bloomberg Healthiest Country Index – 2019 edition

#61

Post by antr »

ilikehurdles wrote: post #54
antr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rampant privatization? Spain's public healthcare expenditure[1] was: 38.552 €bn in 2002, and 66.678 €bn in 2016 (latest official year), this is a 73% increase in 14 years. On other hand while population was 41.31 m in 2002, and 46.48 m in 2016, A 13% increase. This is a 53% net increase in expenditure per capita. I'm curious to know what "rampant privatization" to you means, as government/public expenditure has by no…

The US has the highest healthcare expenditure and the most privatization. I think I’m seeing a pattern.

Feel free to share with us another official source that shows that this increase in expenditure is a result of capital going to private players. There is a big difference between "seeing a pattern" and "believing in a pattern".

Re: Bloomberg Healthiest Country Index – 2019 edition

#62

Post by consz »

majewsky wrote: post #52
lettergram wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d love to see real stats on that. All I ever see is the statement that there’s this huge problem in the US. Yet, when I travel I see tons of people without teeth, starving in the street, etc. It’s anecdotal, but I cannot imagine these countries are equivalent. I’ve even seen the claim healthcare is super good outside the United stares. Although it costs more, the US had a top notch system for medical care. They can…

> They can see a doctor in minutes, get open heart surgery, and go home for See, that's one of the problems I have with the American system right there. Why do you have to pay for life-saving surgery when you already have insurance? That's absurd.

>People die on the list to get treatment.

This doesn't appear to be any different in the US, though -- people die often in the US from either waiting to get enough money for copays or from having their treatment be rejected by their insurance enough times until they die.

Re: Bloomberg Healthiest Country Index – 2019 edition

#63

Post by ginko »

lettergram wrote: post #60
majewsky wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They can see a doctor in minutes, get open heart surgery, and go home for See, that's one of the problems I have with the American system right there. Why do you have to pay for life-saving surgery when you already have insurance? That's absurd.

It’s called a co-pay and it’s because you’re expected to pay a portion along with all treatment. This is to make sure you aren’t going when you don’t need it. $8000 for lift saving treatment is nothing really. I can go to the doctor for $20 - $40. However, if I need open heart surgery, $8k is fair. In Ireland, Canada, etc you have to wait months to get treatment. People die on the list to get treatment. That’s my iss…

>However, if I need open heart surgery, $8k is fair.

No this doesn't seem fair to me at all. No one should have to pay so much out of their pocket for a life saving operation.

Re: Bloomberg Healthiest Country Index – 2019 edition

#64

Post by 99052882514569 »

antr wrote: post #19
manuelflara wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, the public healthcare system in Spain, while still great compared to most of the world, is a shadow of what it once was, with the rampant privatization done by the Government in the last decade. A really sad situation. That being said, decent private healthcare here is about 100€/month, so while private healthcare is still considered "a luxury" (because public one is pretty good), it's still very very far fro…

Rampant privatization? Spain's public healthcare expenditure[1] was: 38.552 €bn in 2002, and 66.678 €bn in 2016 (latest official year), this is a 73% increase in 14 years. On other hand while population was 41.31 m in 2002, and 46.48 m in 2016, A 13% increase. This is a 53% net increase in expenditure per capita. I'm curious to know what "rampant privatization" to you means, as government/public expenditure has by no…

When you compute per-capita expenditure in 2016 Euros, it's a rather more modest 20% increase.

€1191.25 per capita in 2002.

€1434.55 per capita in 2016.

Re: Bloomberg Healthiest Country Index – 2019 edition

#65

Post by mattlondon »

lettergram wrote: post #39
lultimouomo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you assume the problem is with the methodology of the study? Cuba has a longer life expectancy than US. As a European, I'd say there's something wrong with US approach to health: people living under a dictatorship in a poor country have better health than Americans.

I’d love to see real stats on that. All I ever see is the statement that there’s this huge problem in the US. Yet, when I travel I see tons of people without teeth, starving in the street, etc. It’s anecdotal, but I cannot imagine these countries are equivalent. I’ve even seen the claim healthcare is super good outside the United stares. Although it costs more, the US had a top notch system for medical care. They can…

> They can see a doctor in minutes, get open heart surgery, and go home for This is the same in any developed country (i.e. you can see a doctor if you pay), except that in addition to that most non-US developed countries also have the safety net of cradle-to-grave government run health care system.

This means if you dont have $8000 you can also get heart surgery and dont die.

Ideally with free & universal healthcare, you dont even get to the stage where you need emergency surgery in the first place. i.e. you'll be diagnosed and treated ahead of time when its not an emergency yet.

I've used both public and private in the UK. The benefit for the private health care is you generally get to pick when & where your appointment is (vs public when you are often told when & where your appointment will be and you need to change your schedule to get there on time ... although you do have some leeway in picking your clinic), and the places you go to do it are generally nicer places to be (decor, surroundings etc). If you need something truly urgently, the public system will generally get you seen as quickly as private. If its not urgent, then the public system has longer waiting times (because the truly urgent cases are getting seen first). Typically the equipment & treatments available in public clinics/hospitals is as-good or even better than the private clinics, and all the surgeons and doctors often do both public and private work.

tl;dr - Money generally just buys you convenience and nicer waiting rooms in non-US countries. The level of care is about the same IME.

Re: Bloomberg Healthiest Country Index – 2019 edition

#66

Post by mattlondon »

lettergram wrote: post #60
majewsky wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They can see a doctor in minutes, get open heart surgery, and go home for See, that's one of the problems I have with the American system right there. Why do you have to pay for life-saving surgery when you already have insurance? That's absurd.

It’s called a co-pay and it’s because you’re expected to pay a portion along with all treatment. This is to make sure you aren’t going when you don’t need it. $8000 for lift saving treatment is nothing really. I can go to the doctor for $20 - $40. However, if I need open heart surgery, $8k is fair. In Ireland, Canada, etc you have to wait months to get treatment. People die on the list to get treatment. That’s my iss…

> . This is to make sure you aren’t going when you don’t need it.

This just does not compute. If you have a health concern, YOU NEED TO GO TO THE DOCTORS.

Trying to scare people away from visiting a doctors until it is bad-enough that their fear for their health overpowers their fear for their wallet is just sadistic madness. Utter utter madness.

Re: Bloomberg Healthiest Country Index – 2019 edition

#67

Post by defertoreptar »

lultimouomo wrote: post #29
lettergram wrote: post #27

There’s something wrong with the methodology here when Cuba is ranked higher than the US. People are starving in Cuba, with no health care...

Why do you assume the problem is with the methodology of the study? Cuba has a longer life expectancy than US. As a European, I'd say there's something wrong with US approach to health: people living under a dictatorship in a poor country have better health than Americans.

One problem with life expectancy is how countries report infant deaths. USA has different standards than most countries, which as a result, it hurts their health statistics.

> well-known issue with cross-country comparisons of infant mortality is possible reporting differences for infants born near the threshold of viability. Extremely preterm births recorded as a live birth in some places may be considered miscarriages or stillbirths in other countries (Golding 2001; Graafmans et al. 2001; Sachs et al. 1995; Wegman 1996). Since survival before 22 weeks or under 500 grams is very rare, categorizing these births as live births would inflate reported infant mortality rates (which are reported as a share of live births).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4856058/

Re: Bloomberg Healthiest Country Index – 2019 edition

#68

Post by melenaboija »

JaumeGreen wrote: post #31
melenaboija wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you are not saying the report is propaganda, but I understand you mean appearing in media is. What I am saying is that besides the intention of the article (which is Bloomberg giving UN results) these are facts. Seeing this facts stated might help others and it does not mean stop fighting for other causes in the country.

> I know you are not saying the report is propaganda, but I understand you mean appearing in media is. No, I do not mean what you are saying. I was talking about what is on the newspapers these days on here: * Catalonia * Next general elections (on April) * "Minor" cases of corruption (relative to others in either money amount or the person affected) * Football (Soccer for the people from USA) * Venezuela * "Famous"…

I'm sorry. I keep seeing much more political intention in your comments than the article per se.

Re: Bloomberg Healthiest Country Index – 2019 edition

#69

Post by RobertoG »

antr wrote: post #58
RobertoG wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you don't take into account inflation, not GDP per capita grow, not population ageing, but the take-away should be the same.

There is an argument made towards "rampant privatisation", i.e. a transfer of a business from public to private control. However, data shows that government expenditure has increased above CPI, the driver of prices (not an output like "GDP per capita", which for some reason you refer too as an economic driver of sorts). I cannot observe, from official data the I link to, a slow down in public healthcare investment by…

The data you request (if I'm reading it correctly) is in your link, in the "2002-2016 series" document, page 9, point 3.3

The transference to the private sector in 2002 (thousands of Euros): 25017

In 2010 (the highest of the serie): 81997

In 2016: 54913

I didn't say the "rampant privatization" thing, but, as you can see, the spending more than doubled. Should we take into account the inflation here or not?

GDP per capita is, I think, important as an answer to your opinion of "expenditure is out of control" by the way.

>>"I'm not here for armchair politics."

Good to know, but until where I can see, we were discussing numbers not politics.

EDIT: I keep reading and that data is not right. The number are low, but I can't make sense of the tables. It would take a while to understand it. The good news is the data is there.

Re: Bloomberg Healthiest Country Index – 2019 edition

#70

Post by haasted »

lettergram wrote: post #60
majewsky wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They can see a doctor in minutes, get open heart surgery, and go home for See, that's one of the problems I have with the American system right there. Why do you have to pay for life-saving surgery when you already have insurance? That's absurd.

It’s called a co-pay and it’s because you’re expected to pay a portion along with all treatment. This is to make sure you aren’t going when you don’t need it. $8000 for lift saving treatment is nothing really. I can go to the doctor for $20 - $40. However, if I need open heart surgery, $8k is fair. In Ireland, Canada, etc you have to wait months to get treatment. People die on the list to get treatment. That’s my iss…

> However, if I need open heart surgery, $8k is fair.

A "one-off" treatment such as this is one thing, but the co-pay system really breaks down for the individual once you start talking chronic conditions that require regular treatments for life.

In that case your insurance company may start to see you as a liability and raise the co-pay until treatment is no longer econically viable for the patient.

Post reply on HN