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

Why Can't America Handle the Coronavirus Crisis?

mattstoller.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 46 posts

Re: Why Can't America Handle the Coronavirus Crisis?

#31

Post by burakemir »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #23
cma wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What country has a working completely private healthcare system?

> What country has a working completely private healthcare system? Switzerland [1]. And the Netherlands has a mostly-private system [2]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherland...

In Switzerland, health insurance may be private, but is mandatory and there is a large catalog that even the cheapest insurance must cover.

On the other hand, the state (each canton) pours large amounts of money into hospitals and research. There are laws and regulations at various levels (edit: eg how many doctors may open a new cabinet), and in these days we are reminded that doctors can be mandated to work when a crisis requires it.

Calling this a "completely private healthcare system" is a bit misleading.

Re: Why Can't America Handle the Coronavirus Crisis?

#32

Post by forkexec »

The simplified answer: the US is a late-stage civilization in gradual decline since either post-WW2 or about 1960.

The "frog" has been "boiling" slowly for a long time and is almost cooked.

See also:

- America: The Farewell Tour by Chris Hedges

- Chalmers Johnson's Decline of Empires: Signs of Decay https://youtu.be/Q2CCs-x9q9U

- The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbon

- The Rise and Fall of the Great Empires by Taylor

Re: Why Can't America Handle the Coronavirus Crisis?

#34

Post by JumpCrisscross »

burakemir wrote: post #31
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What country has a working completely private healthcare system? Switzerland [1]. And the Netherlands has a mostly-private system [2]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherland...

In Switzerland, health insurance may be private, but is mandatory and there is a large catalog that even the cheapest insurance must cover. On the other hand, the state (each canton) pours large amounts of money into hospitals and research. There are laws and regulations at various levels (edit: eg how many doctors may open a new cabinet), and in these days we are reminded that doctors can be mandated to work when a…

> Calling this a "completely private healthcare system" is a bit misleading

The assets are privately owned. That’s completely private.

It’s not laissez faire. But those are different things. Subsidies and buying mandates are compatible with total privatisation, something often lost in this debate.

Re: Why Can't America Handle the Coronavirus Crisis?

#35

Post by forkexec »

gentleman11 wrote: post #3

The elephant in the room (re: the pandemic response) is the privatized health care system. With costs so high, people will avoid treatment, and with few security nets, people will go to work sick. How exactly do you prevent a rapid spread in that situation?

The SARS-CoV-2 test is or was $2000 without insurance. And now the private test clinics have it and get to charge whatever they want. In the past, such tests would be provided to the public for free. Instead, the poor and working-poor do without, have to go to work sick because they don't have sick days, and infect more people because they don't have a choice unless they want to lose their jobs, their housing, and become homeless.

Re: Why Can't America Handle the Coronavirus Crisis?

#36

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

283627283637 wrote: post #16
parasight wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the German Wikipedia article every Dutch person is required by law to have a "legally defined" healthcare contract. Sounds quite different to the US system.

At face value, this is almost exactly what Obama did. It killed most of the cheap options for people who just want emergency coverage and was essentially a tax in disguise which many Americans objected to.

This is false. "Catastrophic coverage" was ended because of the sheer wealth of data that these insurance policies did not in fact provide their customers with what the customers were expecting. That is: a person with such a policy who unfortunately suffered a major accident or severe illness would find the insurance company wriggling out of any financial responsibility.

The rules were tightened up, and without any explict legal language banning them, insurance companies dropped such policies because they knew they could not satisfy the new rules requiring actual coverage.

Re: Why Can't America Handle the Coronavirus Crisis?

#37

Post by blackrock »

But according to Western media, free, rich, and democratic America, with our great President Trump, should be able to handle this crisis, much better than poor, enslaved, and totalitarian China.

This is what the Western media has been pushing down our throats for the past 2 months. Did something just change in the past week?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/why-democr...

Re: Why Can't America Handle the Coronavirus Crisis?

#38

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

docdeek wrote: post #30
olliej wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not sure why people are hating on this - the approach of the current WH has been to destroy what little remaining respect for the US that the rest of the world had.

Likely because having the respect of the rest of the world or electing Hillary Clinton in 2016 would have made very little difference in the face of (a) a pandemic virus, and (b) the major structural problems in the US economy that the article points to.

You're right that the president elected in 2016 wouldn't by themselves have been able to stop a pandemic or address major structural economic problems.

But sometimes, just basic competence can go a long way, and although I didn't expect to agree with many of her policies, Clinton would almost certainly have brought that to the White House and the rest of the administrative branch.

Re: Why Can't America Handle the Coronavirus Crisis?

#39

Post by 283627283637 »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #36
283627283637 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At face value, this is almost exactly what Obama did. It killed most of the cheap options for people who just want emergency coverage and was essentially a tax in disguise which many Americans objected to.

This is false. "Catastrophic coverage" was ended because of the sheer wealth of data that these insurance policies did not in fact provide their customers with what the customers were expecting. That is: a person with such a policy who unfortunately suffered a major accident or severe illness would find the insurance company wriggling out of any financial responsibility. The rules were tightened up, and without any e…

I'm not contesting that there were people who didn't understand their plans, there are people who don't understand their plans now. That doesn't change that they were low cost insurance products that could be combined with an untaxed HSA to produce a comparatively strong safety net at a low price for the consumer. It also doesn't change the all around price inflation that happened following the market consolidation that came in wake of the changes you mention.

Re: Why Can't America Handle the Coronavirus Crisis?

#40

Post by cma »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #34
burakemir wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Switzerland, health insurance may be private, but is mandatory and there is a large catalog that even the cheapest insurance must cover. On the other hand, the state (each canton) pours large amounts of money into hospitals and research. There are laws and regulations at various levels (edit: eg how many doctors may open a new cabinet), and in these days we are reminded that doctors can be mandated to work when a…

> Calling this a "completely private healthcare system" is a bit misleading The assets are privately owned. That’s completely private. It’s not laissez faire . But those are different things. Subsidies and buying mandates are compatible with total privatisation, something often lost in this debate.

Privitisation of some of the profits, but not of the state-mandated signup scheme or the payments:

> The insured person pays the insurance premium for the basic plan up to 8% of their personal income.

So some huge portion is state-subsidized for lower incomes.

Medicare advantage in the US has similar privitisation aspects as well.

Post reply on HN