Both in rich and poor countries, universal health care brings huge benefits • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by rogerb » Wed, May 02, 2018, 3:10 PM UTC

sykh wrote: post #6

When a person gets a life threatening disease they ought not worry about whether or not their treatment will leave their family in penury. This is especially so in a nation as wealthy as the U.S. The American healthcare system is immoral and I hope it drastically changes. Americans need to change their underlying notions of what it means to be a society. An author was once made fun of for suggesting that it takes a v…

There's a simple thought experiment that helps:

- an american citizen break his leg, he is not insured. Do you A: let him die B: take care of him ?

if your answer is A - you are a terrible person, but you hold a consistent position. if your answer is B - the only question that remains is what is the most economic, efficient way to take care of this person ?

b is universal health care. if you think you can do A with emergency care, consider how inefficient and expensive this is, and who ends up paying for it.

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

#132

Post by theBobBob » Wed, May 02, 2018, 3:11 PM UTC

judah wrote: post #90

theBobBob wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that the healthcare was paid for by the Government had absolutely nothing to do with that case. A healthcare decision had to be made for a patient that was not able to make the decision themselves. When the doctors thought that the decision that the parents were making on behalf of the child was against the best interests of the patient they asked the courts to make a judgement of what should be done. The sa…

>> A healthcare decision had to be made for a patient that was not able to make the decision themselves Yes - it was made for the patient against the patient's legal guardians - his own mother and father. The government-run system overruled the patient's legal guardians. This is precisely the issue at hand: a loss of freedom resulting from a healthcare system ultimately ruled by the government itself. The government…

Again, the fact that the court made a decision for the patient has nothing to do with how the healthcare system of the country is funded. Courts and the legal system make decisions about children's lives against the wishes of parents all the time. Courts remove children from parents that they deem unfit. Courts decide that one parent or the other should have sole custody of the child against the wish of the other and many more examples.

Quite frankly I'm much more scared of a system where a parent has complete and absolute control over a child no matter what than one where a court can step in and overrule a decision of a parent. The doctors and courts owe their duty of care to the patient not to the parents.

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

#133

Post by mikeash » Wed, May 02, 2018, 3:11 PM UTC

patrickmay wrote: post #24

Universal health care doesn't require government coercion. Many more people in the US would have access to health care, including insurance for catastrophic events, if the state and federal governments stopped interfering in the supply side. The same groups that use force to prevent new hospitals being built, restrict the number of doctors, prevent nurses and nurse practitioners from treating many problems they're mo…

Many people would also lose access to health care. Remember when a pre-existing condition meant you were fucked for life? It wasn’t that long ago.

Fully privatized, deregulated systems can work out great for people who are lucky enough to avoid financial hardships, bad planning, or being born into bad circumstances. I’d rather not just screw everybody else.

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

#134

Post by Pharylon » Wed, May 02, 2018, 3:11 PM UTC

conanbatt wrote: post #89

Pharylon wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think emotional arguments are a distraction, they're the whole point. This is a moral issue. Other countries manage to have universal healthcare and it doesn't break the bank. In fact, they spend less per person. The fiscal argument is the distraction.

> I don't think emotional arguments are a distraction, they're the whole point. This is a moral issue. I find the moral argument to be disingenuous. It is immoral to make poor people pay a tax that cure the diseases of rich people. "Nobody should go hungry, so everyone should be able to eat anywhere they want and not look at the tab".

Disingenuous? You think people arguing that it's immoral for someone to die because they were born poor are not actually sincere in their argument? Tell me, what is my evil ulterior motive? Do I actually just want to increase taxes for the hell of it?

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

#135

Post by oldcynic » Wed, May 02, 2018, 3:12 PM UTC

judah wrote: post #90

theBobBob wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that the healthcare was paid for by the Government had absolutely nothing to do with that case. A healthcare decision had to be made for a patient that was not able to make the decision themselves. When the doctors thought that the decision that the parents were making on behalf of the child was against the best interests of the patient they asked the courts to make a judgement of what should be done. The sa…

>> A healthcare decision had to be made for a patient that was not able to make the decision themselves Yes - it was made for the patient against the patient's legal guardians - his own mother and father. The government-run system overruled the patient's legal guardians. This is precisely the issue at hand: a loss of freedom resulting from a healthcare system ultimately ruled by the government itself. The government…

> The government has final say over healthcare decisions

No, the medical professionals, i.e. doctors do.

"the unanimous opinion of the doctors who have examined him and the scans of his brain is that almost all of his brain has been destroyed".

What happens in a non state run healthcare system when a parent refuses to accept someone's death in the ICU?

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

#136

Post by arcticbull » Wed, May 02, 2018, 3:12 PM UTC

edanm wrote: post #107

arcticbull wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's some serious mental gymnastics going on here to justify that the US spends 2x the next country per capita on health care expenditure and still doesn't manage to pay for all its citizens. Especially when the federal government has already taken all its worst customers (the old) and thrown them into a socialized pool (medicare) without anyone to balance out the risk. Wasn't there a writeup recently that wealth…

> There's some serious mental gymnastics going on here to justify that the US spends 2x the next country per capita on health care expenditure and still doesn't manage to pay for all its citizens. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. The US does spend a lot more, and doesn't cover everyone. If I understood the parent post, (part of what) it's saying that the US needs to focus on lowering costs, because otherwi…

Sure, my bad, in re-reading I can see how this wasn't clear.

I meant along the lines of: I can't see how allowing medicare to negotiate drug prices, letting nurses do more of what doctors do and publishing prices gets the US medical system anywhere close to a 50% reduction in per capita spend, or gets the US any closer to covering 100% of the population. The US should do each of these. Each would make a difference.

What the country needs, though, is real reform.

And also, yes, socialized medicine is dramatically more efficient. Medicare's overhead is only 2% whereas that of private insurance is 18%. Just knocking that off the top would bring the US per capita expenditure much more in line with the OECD.

[1] http://cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/overhead-costs-for-private-h...

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

#137

Post by sykh » Wed, May 02, 2018, 3:12 PM UTC

DamnYuppie wrote: post #118

sykh wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a well known fact that all medical care systems ration care. A person in America who gets cancer, say, often times faces bankrupt and financial ruin. The same can not be said of people in other wealthy nations. I fail to see your point. All healthcare systems ration care. Not all of them lead to financial ruin at the rate the American healthcare system does. My statement stands. A person ought not face financia…

They don't face financial ruin, unless they don't have health insurance and or they opt for various drugs that aren't covered by their plan. Before everyone screams that all things should be covered please consider that due diligence has actually been done and the drug was considered to either not be effective or not needed based upon other existing treatments.

The idea of universal care is that everyone have insurance. Before Obamacare my sister got cancer. She wasn’t lucky enough to have an employer nice enough to provide insurance through her job. Even people with insurance often times face financial ruin. Especially before Obamacare was enacted.

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

#138

Post by ordinaryperson » Wed, May 02, 2018, 3:13 PM UTC

skywhopper wrote: post #49

ordinaryperson wrote: post #18

Universal health care is a euphemism for the poor and sick getting their medical care subsidized by the wealthy and healthy. Morally, caring for the sick seems like the right thing to do, but it's like when I hear Bernie Sanders call for "free college education": he doesn't mean free, he means the wealthy subsidizing it for others. Universal health care implies just distributed costs, but the focus should be on bring…

You make lots of bad assumptions. But if you are going to get all nihilist about it, go all in. Your wealth is predicated on the government that ensures it’s value. Nothing you “own”, including money, is “yours” except by virtue of the laws and under threat of force from whatever relevant powers exist in your locality be they corporate, military, or organized crime. You benefit greatly from the “power transfer” that…

My wealth? Didn't I just say above I'm not wealthy?

Just because the state provides benefits (self-defense, rule of law, etc) doesn't preclude you from ownership rights, not really following your argument there.

Taxing one group and providing the benefits to another is a wealth transfer, however unappealing the idea sounds to you.

How is not favoring selective taxation "nihilist"? If I were a nihilist I'd believe in nothing and favor no taxes at all.

You're passionate, I get it, I want sick people taken care of too, but I don't really see how your arguments add up.

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

#139

Post by conanbatt » Wed, May 02, 2018, 3:14 PM UTC

sykh wrote: post #93

conanbatt wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When a person gets a life threatening disease they ought not worry about whether or not their treatment will leave their family in penury. You can't start any economic argument by saying that paying any cost is a must. You will get fleeced. It is not true that universal healthcare pays for everything. The most expensive and experimental treatments will not be covered ever by the system, and it shouldnt.

It is a well known fact that all medical care systems ration care. A person in America who gets cancer, say, often times faces bankrupt and financial ruin. The same can not be said of people in other wealthy nations. I fail to see your point. All healthcare systems ration care. Not all of them lead to financial ruin at the rate the American healthcare system does. My statement stands. A person ought not face financia…

> A person ought not face financial ruin.

The logical consequence of this is that any cost must be paid. And if the person cant pay it someone else does. So if someone gets a rare cancer whose treatment has 1% effectiveness and costs millions, it should be paid by someone else.

The principle is wishful thinking, not economics. We as people every day make trades of our life for money. We pick a means of transportation riskier than other to save some money, we choose to use a bike to be physically healthier in the long run but expose to short term risks. We eat those cheese french friends with a beer, or smoke. Etc etc.

We are no strangers to paying our pleasures with our life.

- It is the tendency of all men to magnify their own services and to disparage services rendered them, and private matters would be poorly regulated if there was not some standard of value. This guarantee we have not (or we hardly have it), in public affairs.

Americans often believe that universal healthcare is this pristine ideal that will solve everything, but thats because you haven't analyzed the consequences of it and its real life consequences.

The problem of healthcare in the us is not public-vs-private, its the extreme regulatory environment.

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

#140

Post by sykh » Wed, May 02, 2018, 3:14 PM UTC

conanbatt wrote: post #123

monocasa wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't start any economic argument by saying that paying any cost is a must. You will get fleeced. ... in an open market.

In a government program you get fleeced twice, first by extra taxes, and second by worse services.

The services could be worse but aren’t necessarily worse. It’s foolish to think that any government service is worse than a private one. Also, universal healthcare doesn’t necessarily mean government run.