4 ms·

>Many countries have socialized medicine, some of which have single payer, and I've never met a person who experienced a single payer system who didn't think it

by hugh4 11y ago

>Many countries have socialized medicine, some of which have single payer, and I've never met a person who experienced a single payer system who didn't think it was the right way to go. Really? You haven't met many people. However, I'm pleased to meet you, because I've lived in the US and Australia and I think that the US system is vastly superior (assuming you have decent insurance). My objection to the Australian system is both practical (the standard of care is lower because hospitals are just government departments, they don't have a profit motive, it suits them to give you less care rather than more) and philosophical ("single-payer" health care just functions as yet another government-enforced transfer of wealth from the rich who earn it to the poor who vote for it).

specialist 11y ago
Practically, the Australian system has better outcomes at lower cost. Philosophically, you say "earn", whereas the labor denied their fair share of productivity gains would more likely say "horde" or "theft".
Frondo 11y ago
Surveys show overwhelming popularity among single-payer systems. The parent poster doesn't need to have met many people--all the data we have suggests that single-payer is very popular. As for the "wealth transfer" stuff, well, yes, that's what society is. The idea that we're all somehow making money in isolation and in a vacuum (some more, some less), and the government can only interfere with that activity, was in vogue for a while but seems to be falling out of favor, I think, because it doesn't actually describe reality. Reality is, we all live in a society we all share, and when someone comes out on top, the answer isn't "ok, you're rich, you won the game, and screw everyone else," the answer is, "ok, you're rich, now you have a greater responsibility to everyone else." Behold, society!
r00fus 11y ago
(Assuming one has good insurance) ... This is the major problem in the U.S.
beagle3 11y ago
> I've lived in the US and Australia and I think that the US system is vastly superior (assuming you have decent insurance). Go ask your australian friends who lived in the US what they think. I've lived in the US and Israel, and spent considerable time in the UK (the latter two single payer systems), and I had great insurance living in the US. The "standard of care" is a vague measure that could mean anything at all. Yes, being hospitalized in the US is more like a hotel room, one person per room. But the doctors are considerably less experienced (structurally so), which means you get the wrong care for things that aren't common (from experience). The "out-of-pocket" on my great insurance in the US is significantly higher than my premium-to-make-include-hotel-room-stays in the other places. And I generally have much shorter waits for both routine visits and specialty doctors outside the US. The US costs a lot more. In return, you get care that is lesser but is shinier. Every statistic of care effectiveness that I've seen ranks the US quite low -- mostly comparing life expectancy but also quality-of-life post treatment. What's this "standard of care" you speak of? Note, I'm unfamiliar with the australian system - it might be worse than the US on every front. But the Japanese, Swiss, British, most EU, and Israeli systems are not lesser and much, much cheaper, in my opinion and limited experience. p.s. re "great insurance" - it's great until you really need it, but then it fails to be great way too often. Leading cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical expenses[0] - more than 50% of medical bankruptcies are by people who have insurance. How great is that? [0] http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148 http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148

by hugh4 11y ago

specialist 11y ago

Practically, the Australian system has better outcomes at lower cost. Philosophically, you say "earn", whereas the labor denied their fair share of productivity gains would more likely say "horde" or "theft".

Frondo 11y ago

Surveys show overwhelming popularity among single-payer systems. The parent poster doesn't need to have met many people--all the data we have suggests that single-payer is very popular. As for the "wealth transfer" stuff, well, yes, that's what society is. The idea that we're all somehow making money in isolation and in a vacuum (some more, some less), and the government can only interfere with that activity, was in vogue for a while but seems to be falling out of favor, I think, because it doesn't actually describe reality. Reality is, we all live in a society we all share, and when someone comes out on top, the answer isn't "ok, you're rich, you won the game, and screw everyone else," the answer is, "ok, you're rich, now you have a greater responsibility to everyone else." Behold, society!

r00fus 11y ago

(Assuming one has good insurance) ... This is the major problem in the U.S.

beagle3 11y ago

> I've lived in the US and Australia and I think that the US system is vastly superior (assuming you have decent insurance). Go ask your australian friends who lived in the US what they think. I've lived in the US and Israel, and spent considerable time in the UK (the latter two single payer systems), and I had great insurance living in the US. The "standard of care" is a vague measure that could mean anything at all. Yes, being hospitalized in the US is more like a hotel room, one person per room. But the doctors are considerably less experienced (structurally so), which means you get the wrong care for things that aren't common (from experience). The "out-of-pocket" on my great insurance in the US is significantly higher than my premium-to-make-include-hotel-room-stays in the other places. And I generally have much shorter waits for both routine visits and specialty doctors outside the US. The US costs a lot more. In return, you get care that is lesser but is shinier. Every statistic of care effectiveness that I've seen ranks the US quite low -- mostly comparing life expectancy but also quality-of-life post treatment. What's this "standard of care" you speak of? Note, I'm unfamiliar with the australian system - it might be worse than the US on every front. But the Japanese, Swiss, British, most EU, and Israeli systems are not lesser and much, much cheaper, in my opinion and limited experience. p.s. re "great insurance" - it's great until you really need it, but then it fails to be great way too often. Leading cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical expenses[0] - more than 50% of medical bankruptcies are by people who have insurance. How great is that? [0] http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148 http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148