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

131–140 of 239 posts

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

#131

Post by soco »

short_sells_poo wrote: post #83
CaptainZapp wrote: post #76

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. In Switzerland I get an MRI within 48 hours if my doctor orders it. Mind you, healthcare is also very expensive comparatively but the quality is very high and coverage is extensive.

I feel the seiss system really nails it. Health insurance is mandatory. If you can't afford even the basic level, the government pays for it. The basic level itself covers basically everything from emergency care, hospital stays and gp. The extras you can pay for are things like single rooms in hospitals or access to private clinics. Compared to the local salaries, the basic package is quite cheap - doubly so compare…

Maybe because the Swiss didn't let the magical hand of privatization solve it? The healthcare providers might be private but the laws and regulations and conditions under which they are run are very strict and very detailed. Perfect? Of course not, I could give examples heaps. But better that many? Very yes.

Now, is there here anybody from Spain to comment on their system? I've heard good stuff about it.

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

#132

Post by sensanaty »

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…

Okay, and what about all the other people who aren't blessed enough to be SWEs? They should just rot and go into medical debt for the rest of their lives for daring to get sick?

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

#133

Post by gregjor »

ein0p wrote: post #46
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…

The US is so corrupt that I’m afraid any attempt at universal healthcare would make it even more expensive. Obamacare was basically a trillion dollar giveaway to Big Pharma and Big Healthcare. The only positive thing I can see in it for me personally is that it became possible to buy (extremely expensive) healthcare privately rather than through an employer, and you could not be denied due to pre-existing condition.…

Matches my experience. As a self-employed person health insurance in the US costs more under ACA, and then many doctors, hospitals, and labs won’t accept the ACA coverage.

My parents in America have Medicare plus a private “advantage” add-on they can barely afford. Right now they are waiting — for months — to find out if a necessary surgery will get approved or not.

I live in Thailand now, where I can afford insurance and get top quality care with no waiting, referrals, or uncertainty, and costs at the best hospitals still a fraction of US prices.

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

#134

Post by armitron »

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 only explanation is that the "report" is obviously detached from reality and using massaged metrics to make political points. The NHS is as bad as it gets.

"More than 120,000 people in England died last year while on the NHS waiting list for hospital treatment, figures obtained by Labour appear to show. That would be a record high number of such deaths, and is double the 60,000 patients who died in 2017/18."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/30/national-tra...

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

#135

Post by MediumOwl »

chgs wrote: post #95
zjp wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also: an unironic 1%-er income in France is like literally the bottom of the barrel Bay Area salary. If you're at or above the median America is great, outside of some very high cost of living cities.

Really teachers and baristas and builders get paid more than 99% of people in France Or are you just talking specific tech jobs.

According to this article (https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2022/06/03/france-h...), top 1% earner in France in 2021 was 7180€ monthly, so ~8000$.

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

#136

Post by InDubioProRubio »

nope1000 wrote: post #124
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 think the problem in the west is just demographics. More older people leads to high demand on the healthcare system and fewer working age people leads to less supply.

China, SKorea, Japan.. all aging

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

#138

Post by Propelloni »

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 actual report [1] says it took five domains into account: a) access to care, b) care process, c) administrative efficiency, d) equity, and e) health outcomes. Read the linked summary.

To summarize the summary: from 10 investigated countries, 9 are in the same ballpark. The US is an extreme outlier, bad in almost anything and expensive to boot.

The NHS being in trouble is apparently orthogonal to these domains. It is just unable to cover its cost with the income it has. But NHS is a gem, don't let anybody tell you otherwise. It does a marvelous job with the money it has. The reports laud it for its smart and efficient administrative process, affordability (for the citizen) and to a lesser degree for availability and access. While by no means bad it can improve on the actual care process and the results (which costs money). The NHS seems to be doing a good job and works as intended. The administration, for once, is apparently not to blame. So, what are the things that make people say the NHS is on the brink of collapse in the first place?

[1] https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2...

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

#140

Post by benterix »

inglor_cz wrote: post #128
fire_lake wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well, they are engaged in constant low-level conflict with Russia, so their systems must be pretty hardened against hostile incursions already. If there is one EU region where digital security must be taken as a life-and-death matter, it is the Baltics. In case of weakening of NATO, they are the foremost candidates for the next Special Military Operation.

> In case of weakening of NATO, they are the foremost candidates for the next Special Military Operation.

I guess the odds of Trump winning are much lower than a couple of months ago. And even if he wins, if he follows with his stupid plan of giving Ukraine to Putin, he will be criticized by all sides. So losing a Baltic state would be another bitter blow and he probably would want to avoid that as he wants to appear "strong".

Also, NATO is not just the USA. The remaining countries had no choice but to increase their military spending and will continue to support Ukraine until the last dime knowing that the fall of this country will just make Putin more aggressive. We can't just let this happen, with the next American administration or without.

Post reply on HN