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

US health system ranks last compared with peer nations – report

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 239 posts

Re: US health system ranks last compared with peer nations – report

#101

Post by Rinzler89 »

xvector wrote: post #96
vidarh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I'm trying to make you feel worse about it: In the UK we pay less per capita in taxes toward healthcare than you do in the US (or at least did last I added up the numbers - Medicare and Medicaid alone added up to a higher per capita cost than the NHS), and if we do want private health insurance, which here is basically "queue skip insurance", it costs a fraction of in the US because they only need to provide…

In the UK you also pay insane taxes and your _median_ citizen in the UK has far less disposable income after all expenses including healthcare, according to OECD metrics. In software engineering specifically, I'd make a third of my current income in the UK. I'd much rather make 3x as much in the US and still get free healthcare through my employer, with shorter waiting lists and better treatment outcomes than the NHS…

> your software engineers make a third of what they make here

Is this topic for discussing health care systems or the SW engineering salary dick measuring Olympics? Because those are two different unrelated topics.

Which country pays its software engineers the most is not some yardstick for measuring national quality of life of its average citizens, and whether SW engineers get paid a lot is totally irelevant to the people who are not working or aspiring to be SW engineers.

I bet the disabled US vets, homeless people or McDonalds workers in the states also don't give a fuck that their SW engineers are the best paid in the world but would probably feel a bit cheated learning that despite living and paying taxes in the richest country in the world, their peers in poorer EU countries get much more benefits and better quality of life.

Re: US health system ranks last compared with peer nations – report

#102

Post by wickedsight »

l5870uoo9y wrote: post #93

The UK performs better (third place) than, for example, Germany (second last place). The UK's healthcare system is often heavily criticized as being on the brink of collapse - any explanation for this?

> any explanation for this?

Everything is relative. Most people only use health care in their own countries and therefore can only compare to another time in their own country. So if it used to be better in the UK, it might feel really bad now. If it's always been meh in Germany, it probably feels ok there, since it's always been that way.

Also, populism. Healthcare is a major point in the UK elections. It's been a major talking point for the left that healthcare is awful now due to bad policy by the right. Something doesn't have to be objectively true for people to feel like it is true. Just like everyone always thinks crime is up even when it's down.

Re: US health system ranks last compared with peer nations – report

#103

Post by heraldgeezer »

arjie wrote: post #36

One thing that's surprised me about the US is the general slowness of most things. In India, you can get MRIs and CT Scans same day. Or you could the last time I was there. And it didn't cost very much in comparison. My doctors have all been good (attested to by my parents who are surgeons themselves) but the healthcare system is wonky. One thing I didn't expect is that the Indian system where you just drag your heal…

But did you get to redeem?

Re: US health system ranks last compared with peer nations – report

#104

Post by mytailorisrich »

vidarh wrote: post #53
mytailorisrich wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as you need treatment beyond standard GP/prescriptions, like checks/analyses or specialised consultation/treatment then private insurance comes very handy to get good care quickly. Waiting times are not only for non-essential things. The only thing with no waiting time is A&E if you are in immediate danger of death. The NHS is some "safety net" that does the bare minimum at this point, or no longer anything a…

I have had extensive rounds of tests for various things with the NHS over the last several years, and never had a problem sufficient to feel private insurance, even as cheap as it is in the UK, to be worth it. I don't doubt it's worth it for some, but there's a reason - and while costs will stop some, costs does not explain nearly all of it, given how cheap it is - that only about 10% of the UK population has private…

Private care is still quite affordable on a good salary so I can understand that you feel that private insurance is not worth it, but you were also very lucky with your NHS experience.

For instance the UK have very bad outcomes for cancer because things tend to be caught late and treatment delayed thereafter. Frankly, for anything potentially serious or time-sensitive I would go straight private (and in fact the NHS tells you to do that when they ask you if you have private insurance).

The NHS has much bigger problems than funding. Even the new, left-wing government has indicated that they won't increase funding without reforms.

Re: US health system ranks last compared with peer nations – report

#105

Post by dragonwriter »

trimethylpurine wrote: post #5
naming_the_user wrote: post #2

What does the ranking look like if you compare percentiles? Naively I would assume as a non-American that if you're in the top 20% by income in the US you end up much better off than the top 20% income Brit, for example. Or is it just actually worse for everyone? It feels intuitively obvious that the average will be worse because, well, the average person is skint and the US is less socialist.

The US health care system is partly socialized. Health care is provided for the unemployed or low income and the employed are covered as employers are required to provide health coverage. The odd ones out are typically small business owners who don't insure themselves and choose to take on the risk of potentially large medical bills. In all cases treatment is required by law, regardless of payment.

> In all cases treatment is required by law, regardless of payment.

Screening for and stabilization of emergency medical conditions is required at all emergency departments by law, regardless of ability to pay, but that's much more limited than "in all cases, treatment is required by law, regardless of payment", and even then, hospitals skirt the rules.

Re: US health system ranks last compared with peer nations – report

#106

Post by [deleted] »

calgoo wrote: post #89
evnix wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The general slowness extends to simple things like x-rays and blood tests too. This is not just US but whole of the west seems to have the exact same attitude. Most of Asia has same day or next day medical tests. In India you can order something like UberEats where in a technician comes home collects your blood samples and the results are emailed within the next 24 hours or so. Medicine seems to be commoditzed in the…

I had some pain in my lungs and they gave me an xray in about 30 minutes here in Spain to confirm that i had pneumonia. I waited 45 min to see the doctor in the emergency room and then another 10min waiting for the doc to check the xrays.

[deleted]

Re: US health system ranks last compared with peer nations – report

#107

Post by atoav »

askonomm wrote: post #72
28304283409234 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or any other attack. I remember we had such a centralized registration system. It was used to great effect by the German Nazis when they occupied our country. Of course, occupation by foreign aggressors is highly unlikely in Estonia. Unless history repeats itself as it has (in Estonia) dozens of times.

Do you want to advance your society and make life more convenient for the people or do you want to live in constant fear and create unnecessary complexities for the people? We put a lot of effort in creating secure systems, we audit them constantly, and we get a plethora of cyber attacks from Russians on a constant basis, but they haven't gotten through yet. We believe in living the best life we can, through the mean…

Why does this need to be framed as a ditochomy?

I want my health system to be both resilient and efficient. Why? Because generally when unforeseen black-swan-type catastrophic events produce high demand in the health system, chances are other infrastructure is also affected by whatever that event was.

If the last pandemic has shown anything it is that if great minds come together and cast aside their corporations strategic or financial incentives for a moment, we can have the nice things — so for example tools that excell in multiple dimensions at once that many described as incompatible with each other: convenience, resilience, privacy, ...

If we want to move things forward, we should do our level best to not fall into the trap of false dichotomies. What is often framed as a fundamental dichotomy is usually just a tension that people with vested interests abuse to get a solution that suits them. That is not where real innovation or good engineering happens.

Re: US health system ranks last compared with peer nations – report

#108

Post by xvector »

l5870uoo9y wrote: post #93

The UK performs better (third place) than, for example, Germany (second last place). The UK's healthcare system is often heavily criticized as being on the brink of collapse - any explanation for this?

The system is chronically underfunded (despite the massive amounts of tax revenue it already receives.) Doctors can make much more going private and the public doesn't really feel like paying more in taxes for doctors in the NHS. Plus the inherent waste that comes with every government bureaucracy with access to what feels like ~unlimited funds, with no incentive or competition to be efficient on costs. Vicious cycle.

https://www.bma.org.uk/bma-media-centre/staggering-cost-of-l...

Re: US health system ranks last compared with peer nations – report

#109

Post by HPsquared »

llm_trw wrote: post #61
fire_lake wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does one big digital system make a cyber attack more damaging?

Efficiency and resiliency are usually orthogonal.

Like a physical structure made of one large component is often the strongest and lightest, most rigid etc. But it's the most vulnerable to cracking or other failures.

Re: US health system ranks last compared with peer nations – report

#110

Post by tstrimple »

chgs wrote: post #91
tstrimple wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Joe Lieberman sabotaged the public option.

If one person has such power you aren’t really in a democracy

The senate is not Democratic. Senators represent states, not people. Unfortunately the house is very poor at representation as well since the number of seats has been frozen. Too many compromises with slave holders built into the foundation of our country to have anything approaching a functional system. Those compromises have been hampering democracy and progress ever since.
Post reply on HN