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

#41

Post by monocasa » Wed, May 02, 2018, 2:49 PM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #10

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…

If you think the private healthcare system is immoral, you should take a look at the 100% government ran healthcare system that is the VA. You literally couldn't make up worse things than their administration has been caught doing with little or to consequence. If the VA is the best the US government can do, with some of the most sympathetic citizens, then it is incapable of doing better than our private system.

The VA was a good system not too long ago, but the past couple decades has seen it get extremely underfunded in a starve the beast strategy. It used to be a black eye in the Republican's view of healthcare, but they sure fixed that.

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

#42

Post by jakelazaroff » Wed, May 02, 2018, 2:49 PM UTC

programmarchy wrote: post #22

If you get cancer, would you rather be treated in the US or Europe? Survival rates are significantly higher in the US, so I know what I'd choose. And yeah, I'll pay more, too, because I want high quality doctors.

Are survival rates higher for everyone in the US, or just for those who can afford cancer treatment?

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

#43

Post by alex_anglin » Wed, May 02, 2018, 2:49 PM UTC

programmarchy wrote: post #22

If you get cancer, would you rather be treated in the US or Europe? Survival rates are significantly higher in the US, so I know what I'd choose. And yeah, I'll pay more, too, because I want high quality doctors.

If treatment means bankruptcy, is that much of a choice?

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

#44

Post by arcticbull » Wed, May 02, 2018, 2:49 PM UTC

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…

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 distribution isn't materially distinguishable from luck? [1] Your argument that the healthy/rich subsidize the poor/sick is tantamount to saying the unlucky should fend for themselves. That's an easy argument to make if you're lucky. Your luck may turn at any moment, and then if it does, you're SOL.

Further, if the moral argument falls flat for you, the self-centered argument is that if someone is too poor to get their horrifyingly contagious disease treated until its too late and it spreads to you, you're still sick, and you may still die, cover or no cover. It's why the fire department is socialized -- if the fire spreads to your house, it still burns does it not?

Especially as you argue you're not particularly well off necessary, you should be the strongest advocate for yourself, and therefore, for socialized medicine.

The world is moving there -- at least towards a two-tier system -- and this argument is on the wrong side of history.

[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-...

[EDIT] I also wanted to throw in there the self-centered argument for socialized higher education. If you believe in the value of a college education, then you believe it will increase the productivity of that individual. A more productive individual makes your country more competitive, boosts GDP, moves the markets higher relative to that of other countries. This in turn benefits the wealthy who likely hold equities. Speculative, of course, but the argument seems consistent to me.

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

#45

Post by [deleted] » Wed, May 02, 2018, 2:50 PM UTC

judah wrote: post #23

A problem with government-provided healthcare is that the government will have ultimate say over a patient's care. This is not merely theoretical. Last week, Alfie Evans, a 2 year old, was put to death by the state-run healthcare in the UK.[0] "Alfie's parents had offers of care in Rome, where doctors said they would investigate different treatments. Even Pope Francis appealed to the British government to let Alfie g…

[deleted]

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

#46

Post by Pharylon » Wed, May 02, 2018, 2:50 PM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #10

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…

If you think the private healthcare system is immoral, you should take a look at the 100% government ran healthcare system that is the VA. You literally couldn't make up worse things than their administration has been caught doing with little or to consequence. If the VA is the best the US government can do, with some of the most sympathetic citizens, then it is incapable of doing better than our private system.

The VA has gotten a lot of bad headlines, but I work with a vet who absolutely loved the VA. He brags about the quality and speed of his healthcare all the time. This is in Charlotte, NC. Different offices might be different.

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

#47

Post by theBobBob » Wed, May 02, 2018, 2:50 PM UTC

judah wrote: post #23

A problem with government-provided healthcare is that the government will have ultimate say over a patient's care. This is not merely theoretical. Last week, Alfie Evans, a 2 year old, was put to death by the state-run healthcare in the UK.[0] "Alfie's parents had offers of care in Rome, where doctors said they would investigate different treatments. Even Pope Francis appealed to the British government to let Alfie g…

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 same thing can happen in countries with private healthcare and the same thing would have happened in the UK if they were in a private hospital.

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

#48

Post by KnightOfWords » Wed, May 02, 2018, 2:50 PM UTC

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…

Would you make the same argument against universal education? Spending on healthcare is not zero-sum, the linked article argues that there is good evidence that universal healthcare increases GDP, benefitting the entire economy.

"Economists at the World Bank used to call spending on health a “social overhead”, but now they believe that it speeds up growth, says Timothy Evans, one of its senior directors."

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

#49

Post by skywhopper » Wed, May 02, 2018, 2:51 PM UTC

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 enables you to keep your wealth. So your assertion that “wealth transfer”—if that’s the petty way you need to think about it—is fundamentally immoral is exceedingly hollow when it’s predicated on the same government that transfers power to you on a regular basis.

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

#50

Post by alistairSH » Wed, May 02, 2018, 2:51 PM UTC

programmarchy wrote: post #22

If you get cancer, would you rather be treated in the US or Europe? Survival rates are significantly higher in the US, so I know what I'd choose. And yeah, I'll pay more, too, because I want high quality doctors.

Our system is great, as long as you have more to pay.