10 ms·

The article is nice but a specific comment caught my attention which was "I honestly live in fear of having an accident or getting sick here in America." This.

The article is nice but a specific comment caught my attention which was "I honestly live in fear of having an accident or getting sick here in America." This. No matter what we claim about American healthcare, this points resonates so well with most of us in America. It absolutely is scary to imagine being sick even with insurance. Without insurance, forget about it. Then comes the maze of crazy terms like co-pay, co-insurance, deductible, pre-authorization, in-network, out-network, Specialist referral and god knows what else. Now may I rant about the Insurance companies if I may ? Obamacare was supposed to fix healthcare but it added to the red tape further. No real solutions. Insurance companies still have too much power and they call the shots, not the doctors/hospitals. Good luck fighting a denied claim unless you can shell good amount of lawyer money. I don't know the solution though. America still has one of the best facilities in the world and even though the process is too bureaucratic and downright idiotic in many cases, the care that is actually provided is still pretty good. And I say this as someone who is aware of medical tourism and countries such as India. One solution could be to get rid of insurance scam (yes I call it a scam) and then lets hospitals/doctors compete with transparent pricing in a free market. For catastrophic events, let insurance companies exist. I hate it that to even get an X-Ray, I need insurance and without it, they will look at you as if you came from some strange land. And if you do end up getting a service without insurance, good luck looking at the bill when it finally comes. You can be a crypto expert but won't be able to figure that one out.

fastball 10y ago
No ER in the US will turn you away if you have an emergency, regardless of financial status...
- rdtsc 10y ago
  They will take you but then send you a bill. As a first time visitor to this country many years ago I went an clinic because I had severe strep throat. Waited 1 hour, then some intern saw me for 5 minutes. Gave me a codeine pill and later sent me a bill for $400. That was 1990's $400 dolars, and I had a stipend of only $200 month as a student. That right there is fucked up. Actually, I would rather they just turned me a way -- "Sorry bud, this will be more than you can afford". I know what people will say "Oh you don't have to pay, declare bankruptcy or call and haggle with the hospital". But you know where you haggle with the hospital -- in a 3rd world country when you are bribing the doctors to not kill you. You haggle there as well, and you also have to haggle here to get he "special, I can't pay" rate.
- codegeek 10y ago
  correct. But when you get the bill later, you will probably end up in the ER again. Number one reason of bankrupties in the US is medical bills.
  - refurb 10y ago
    It is in Canada as well. It's the fact you can't work that bankrupts people, not the medical bills.
    - justratsinacoat 10y ago
      This is clever sophistry. However, in Canada, a debilitating injury might necessitate bankruptcy because of bills that you can't pay thanks to a medical condition which precludes your usefully working. In America, a debilitating injury might necessitate bankruptcy because of bills that you can't pay thanks to a medical condition which precludes your usefully working AND an usurious hospital bill.
    - tux1968 10y ago
      Are you sure it is the number one reason in Canada? The first source I could find that provide a percentage breakdown was from 2011 and had medical reasons as #4: http://www.creditcards.ca/credit-card-news/top-ten-reasons-why-canadians-go-bankrupt-1265.php http://www.creditcards.ca/credit-card-news/top-ten-reasons-w... 1. Overextension of credit (22 per cent of all Canadian bankruptcies). 2. Seasonal employment (15 per cent). 3. Job loss (12.8 per cent). 4. Medical problems (11.3 per cent). ...
  - fastball 10y ago
    Unbelievable that you would get charged for someone saving your life.
- bluecmd 10y ago
  Sure, but won't you be in debt for possibly a few decades?
  - fastball 10y ago
    I mean, let's be real, which is worse, dying or being in debt?
    - throwaway-hn123 10y ago
      Isn't not dying AND not being in debt an even less worse option?
      - fastball 10y ago
        Sure, but the money needs to come from somewhere.
        throwaway-hn123 10y ago
        Well, people in most countries apart from the US seem to manage it. I really have no clue what your point is.
        fastball 10y ago
        Most countries apart from the US? Really? Most of them? A. It's not most. Not even close. B. If you take the countries that do have socialized medicine, and add the criterion that the funding is not in constant jeopardy, there are very, very few countries that "manage it".
        flukus 10y ago
        > Most countries apart from the US? Really? Most of them? Most developed countries. In fact, I'd go as far as to call it a qualifier to be a developed country.
- saboot 10y ago
  This is true, but if you have a chronic condition (unmanaged diabetes, mental illness, .. cancer) you'll just get enough to put you in a stable condition and out you go
- Agathos 10y ago
  But try to only have the kinds of emergencies that require no follow-up care.
  - rdtsc 10y ago
    Exactly, I want to see how well showing up to ER for chemotherapy works.
    - apathy 10y ago
      Great for childcare if your kid camps out in the NICU, for burns that require 3 weeks to be walkable again... Really, why would anyone want to streamline delivery of care when we can dispense it in the most staggeringly expensive and inefficient way possible? It's just a mystery to me.
  - fastball 10y ago
    I was replying to a message saying "Americans live in fear of getting in an accident". Everyone lives in fear of getting in an accident. Therefore, I assumed that what codegeek meant was that Americans live in fear of getting in an accident because they won't get treatment. But that is obviously not the case, so I'm not sure what codegeek's point was.
    - Agathos 10y ago
      Serious accidents require both emergency treatment and follow-up treatment. Here's a scary example of getting one and not the other: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4954303/ns/health-health_care/t/womans-skull-replacedafter-months-delays/#.V7uYzZMrJR0 http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4954303/ns/health-health_care/t/wo...
- mikestew 10y ago
  An emergency room is not healthcare. I wish people that so readily trot out this retort could understand the difference.
- apathy 10y ago
  Ah yes, the good old "let's hold up the most inefficient and expensive delivery mechanism known to man", and ignore that every hospital in America would shut their ER down if they could, because they lose money faster than the Pentagon. The only reason those ERs are open in the first place is that you can't be accredited as a general hospital without one (which has specific tax benefits). Anyone who uses this example is either woefully ignorant or a troll.
a3n 10y ago
>the care that is actually provided is still pretty good. When it's provided. If you have employer health insurance, you're usually fine. Otherwise ...
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  Even so... It's a struggle to get them to pay. I am convinced that they "accidentally on purpose" file the wrong paperwork the wrong way to delay claims in hopes of not having to pay them out.
pascalmemories 10y ago
> One solution could be to get rid of insurance scam (yes I call it a scam) and then lets hospitals/doctors compete with transparent pricing in a free market. I don't understand the American (and it is American) obsession with having a free market in healthcare. Why do Americans not look at public provision, paid for via your tax system? Canada does it, so it demonstrably does work in North America, Europe does it, with varying degrees of efficiency, but it basically works. No-one in Europe or Canada lives "in fear having an accident or getting sick" because they know healthcare is provided by the state in the same way as education, fire services and police service are all provided as a public service, for the general good of society, via taxation. Americans are happy to send their children to school, to be able to call the fire department or the police (we'll set aside the clear problems of US policing - you generally still call the police when you see a bank robbery, so there is a degree of confidence in them still). So why is healthcare the exception? What sort of mentality says I am to blame for getting sick and told if I cannot afford medical treatment, I should not have become ill?
- refurb 10y ago
  Because it's worked pretty well for Medicare and Medicaid? Large portions of both were privatized through Medicare Advantage and Managed Medicaid. The gov't pays private companies a flat rate per patient who selects their plan. A majority of Medicare coverage is provided through private companies (100% for the drug benefit). Last I saw 80%+ of Medicaid patients are covered by a private plan. What are the benfits? The private companies take on the risk. If the lump sum the gov't gives them isn't enough to cover costs, tough, the company takes a loss. Gov't loves it as it makes budgeting easy. The other benefit is choice. A patient can select from a multitude of plans that benefit them the most. Want a top doctor? Pick a plan where his/her hospital is in network. Have a chronic disease where you take a lot of meds chronically? Pick a plan with better drug benefits. Medicare Part D - the drug benefit created in 2005 that is entirely private - came in dramatically under cost forecasts.
  - chimeracoder 10y ago
    > Because it's worked pretty well for Medicare and Medicaid? Large portions of both were privatized through Medicare Advantage and Managed Medicaid. The gov't pays private companies a flat rate per patient who selects their plan. Yeah, Original Medicare is pretty awful - I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who's able to get a Medicare Advantage plan. It's not just the cost-of-care and the overall expense to the patient (even though Medicare Advantage tends to win out on both of those aspects as well). It's that Original Medicare is a horribly frustrating experience for the patient as well. Of course, most people (especially most people under the age of 65) don't understand the difference, and when they think about Medicare, they think of a publicly-run program, even though around 40% of the Medicare population is on a Medicare Advantage plan.
red_blobs 10y ago
"It absolutely is scary to imagine being sick even with insurance. Without insurance, forget about it" Hospitals are required to take care of you, even if you have no insurance in the US. If you get a bill you cannot afford, you can negotiate a much lower rate with the hospital (I have done this and my family members have also done this). I run my own business and so I need to pay for myself and my spouses healthcare. Obamacare actually made things worse for me. It doubled my costs (which was promised not to happen) and I was forced out of an otherwise great plan. Getting sick is not even an issue. Medication is fairly inexpensive and if I have major surgery, I will only be out a couple thousand (the cost of a laptop). I have many relatives in Canada and the only reason the system works there is because it borders the US. They get all of their regular care paid for by their taxes and the middle class drive over the border and get major surgery done. The waiting lines are pretty long for most major surgeries and many older people die before they actually get it. The government there continues to promote getting checkups for specific diseases and disorders later and later in life because they don't have the facilities to get it done in a timely fashion for everyone. NHS isn't the panacea everyone makes it out to be. There are no free lunches and when it comes down to it, a finite resource like healthcare has to have a filter/limiter. Since the majority of government run services are not that efficient and will not be able to keep up with demand or technology, it's much better to have a free-market/private care solution. I agree with the sentiment of your post. We need to get rid of the bloated government-supported insurance companies and let the free market decide the price of everything..and offer a form of insurance to the poorest.
- PaulAJ 10y ago
  "Hospitals are required to take care of you, even if you have no insurance in the US." Trouble is, that only applies to emergencies. If you just want to see the doctor about the funny lump you have to pay first. "We need to get rid of the bloated government-supported insurance companies and let the free market decide the price of everything." So when I break a leg I should pay the ambulance to drive around different hospitals collecting quotes for the treatment? This doesn't work for a number of reasons: 1: Most obviously, urgent treatment is urgent. Collecting quotes will take time. 2: Hospitals won't give a quotation for medical treatment. They prefer a cost+ situation, partly because they then make money no matter the outcome, and partly because the costs are so variable that you can't estimate the cost. Just how much is that funny lump going to cost? After a few $K of tests you might be able to put a lower bound on it, but not an upper bound. 3: Medical costs for something serious are bankruptingly large for most people. One serious illness and you have to remortgage your house. Insurance is the only option, but then people at serious risk of illness or injury are more likely to take out insurance, and people who are already ill can't get it or change it. Imagine if you have epilepsy: every few months you wake up in ER and they hand you a $5,000 bill. No insurer will touch you.
sofaofthedamned 10y ago
I couldn't imagine living like that. We bitch and complain about the NHS in the UK but bloody hell I can't think of other systems that are better. I worry about losing my job and looking after gf/son in the aftermath like when I was made redundant from CSCO last year. But i've never had to pile on top of those worries having to worry about an illness taking my redundancy money and savings. (I'm a Brit btw)
mempko 10y ago
It's impossible to have a market for healthcare.
- splintercell 10y ago
  Why?
malz 10y ago
>"I honestly live in fear of having an accident or getting sick here in America." Hmm, I live in fear of getting sick in Cameroon or Honduras. Maybe we're afraid of different things.
- cylinder 10y ago
  Ah America, always comparing ourselves to third world countries.
  - Normal_gaussian 10y ago
    Well in some places it is, in some places it isn't. I have had to stop considering the USA a country in the same way I view most other places. I have a suspicion that China may be the same kind of entity but I am not knowledgeable enough to say for sure.
jrnichols 10y ago
" Insurance companies still have too much power and they call the shots, not the doctors/hospitals." This is where the plan that Trump has makes sense. It takes away a lot of the decisions from the insurance companies and puts it back with the healthcare providers. In addition to letting the existing insurance companies compete across state lines.
darkhorn 10y ago
Better than being communist! /s
arcticbull 10y ago
> America still has one of the best facilities in the world... Not really, at #31 in the WHO rankings [1], it's not even close to the best. At #1 in per capita expenditures, it's also wildly inefficient. For half the per-capita expenditure Canada covers all its citizens. The US spends $8713 per person, per year on healthcare, where Canada spends $4429. [2] The result is a very comparable quality healthcare system (#30 vs. #31 in [1]) that covers everyone. The truth is allowing for profit in a social security program is by definition allowing for inefficiency. Socialized systems do not need to spend money on advertising, on individual billing/accounting systems, or on profits. Nor should they, IMO. Social programs are for everyone. There's plenty of other businesses out there people can profit from. Caring for people when they need it most shouldn't be one of them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_rank... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...

fastball 10y ago

No ER in the US will turn you away if you have an emergency, regardless of financial status...

rdtsc 10y ago
They will take you but then send you a bill. As a first time visitor to this country many years ago I went an clinic because I had severe strep throat. Waited 1 hour, then some intern saw me for 5 minutes. Gave me a codeine pill and later sent me a bill for $400. That was 1990's $400 dolars, and I had a stipend of only $200 month as a student. That right there is fucked up. Actually, I would rather they just turned me a way -- "Sorry bud, this will be more than you can afford". I know what people will say "Oh you don't have to pay, declare bankruptcy or call and haggle with the hospital". But you know where you haggle with the hospital -- in a 3rd world country when you are bribing the doctors to not kill you. You haggle there as well, and you also have to haggle here to get he "special, I can't pay" rate.
codegeek 10y ago
correct. But when you get the bill later, you will probably end up in the ER again. Number one reason of bankrupties in the US is medical bills.
- refurb 10y ago
  It is in Canada as well. It's the fact you can't work that bankrupts people, not the medical bills.
  - justratsinacoat 10y ago
    This is clever sophistry. However, in Canada, a debilitating injury might necessitate bankruptcy because of bills that you can't pay thanks to a medical condition which precludes your usefully working. In America, a debilitating injury might necessitate bankruptcy because of bills that you can't pay thanks to a medical condition which precludes your usefully working AND an usurious hospital bill.
  - tux1968 10y ago
    Are you sure it is the number one reason in Canada? The first source I could find that provide a percentage breakdown was from 2011 and had medical reasons as #4: http://www.creditcards.ca/credit-card-news/top-ten-reasons-why-canadians-go-bankrupt-1265.php http://www.creditcards.ca/credit-card-news/top-ten-reasons-w... 1. Overextension of credit (22 per cent of all Canadian bankruptcies). 2. Seasonal employment (15 per cent). 3. Job loss (12.8 per cent). 4. Medical problems (11.3 per cent). ...
- fastball 10y ago
  Unbelievable that you would get charged for someone saving your life.
bluecmd 10y ago
Sure, but won't you be in debt for possibly a few decades?
- fastball 10y ago
  I mean, let's be real, which is worse, dying or being in debt?
  - throwaway-hn123 10y ago
    Isn't not dying AND not being in debt an even less worse option?
    - fastball 10y ago
      Sure, but the money needs to come from somewhere.
      - throwaway-hn123 10y ago
        Well, people in most countries apart from the US seem to manage it. I really have no clue what your point is.
        fastball 10y ago
        Most countries apart from the US? Really? Most of them? A. It's not most. Not even close. B. If you take the countries that do have socialized medicine, and add the criterion that the funding is not in constant jeopardy, there are very, very few countries that "manage it".
        flukus 10y ago
        > Most countries apart from the US? Really? Most of them? Most developed countries. In fact, I'd go as far as to call it a qualifier to be a developed country.
saboot 10y ago
This is true, but if you have a chronic condition (unmanaged diabetes, mental illness, .. cancer) you'll just get enough to put you in a stable condition and out you go
Agathos 10y ago
But try to only have the kinds of emergencies that require no follow-up care.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  Exactly, I want to see how well showing up to ER for chemotherapy works.
  - apathy 10y ago
    Great for childcare if your kid camps out in the NICU, for burns that require 3 weeks to be walkable again... Really, why would anyone want to streamline delivery of care when we can dispense it in the most staggeringly expensive and inefficient way possible? It's just a mystery to me.
- fastball 10y ago
  I was replying to a message saying "Americans live in fear of getting in an accident". Everyone lives in fear of getting in an accident. Therefore, I assumed that what codegeek meant was that Americans live in fear of getting in an accident because they won't get treatment. But that is obviously not the case, so I'm not sure what codegeek's point was.
  - Agathos 10y ago
    Serious accidents require both emergency treatment and follow-up treatment. Here's a scary example of getting one and not the other: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4954303/ns/health-health_care/t/womans-skull-replacedafter-months-delays/#.V7uYzZMrJR0 http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4954303/ns/health-health_care/t/wo...
mikestew 10y ago
An emergency room is not healthcare. I wish people that so readily trot out this retort could understand the difference.
apathy 10y ago
Ah yes, the good old "let's hold up the most inefficient and expensive delivery mechanism known to man", and ignore that every hospital in America would shut their ER down if they could, because they lose money faster than the Pentagon. The only reason those ERs are open in the first place is that you can't be accredited as a general hospital without one (which has specific tax benefits). Anyone who uses this example is either woefully ignorant or a troll.

a3n 10y ago

>the care that is actually provided is still pretty good. When it's provided. If you have employer health insurance, you're usually fine. Otherwise ...

nommm-nommm 10y ago
Even so... It's a struggle to get them to pay. I am convinced that they "accidentally on purpose" file the wrong paperwork the wrong way to delay claims in hopes of not having to pay them out.

pascalmemories 10y ago

> One solution could be to get rid of insurance scam (yes I call it a scam) and then lets hospitals/doctors compete with transparent pricing in a free market. I don't understand the American (and it is American) obsession with having a free market in healthcare. Why do Americans not look at public provision, paid for via your tax system? Canada does it, so it demonstrably does work in North America, Europe does it, with varying degrees of efficiency, but it basically works. No-one in Europe or Canada lives "in fear having an accident or getting sick" because they know healthcare is provided by the state in the same way as education, fire services and police service are all provided as a public service, for the general good of society, via taxation. Americans are happy to send their children to school, to be able to call the fire department or the police (we'll set aside the clear problems of US policing - you generally still call the police when you see a bank robbery, so there is a degree of confidence in them still). So why is healthcare the exception? What sort of mentality says I am to blame for getting sick and told if I cannot afford medical treatment, I should not have become ill?

refurb 10y ago
Because it's worked pretty well for Medicare and Medicaid? Large portions of both were privatized through Medicare Advantage and Managed Medicaid. The gov't pays private companies a flat rate per patient who selects their plan. A majority of Medicare coverage is provided through private companies (100% for the drug benefit). Last I saw 80%+ of Medicaid patients are covered by a private plan. What are the benfits? The private companies take on the risk. If the lump sum the gov't gives them isn't enough to cover costs, tough, the company takes a loss. Gov't loves it as it makes budgeting easy. The other benefit is choice. A patient can select from a multitude of plans that benefit them the most. Want a top doctor? Pick a plan where his/her hospital is in network. Have a chronic disease where you take a lot of meds chronically? Pick a plan with better drug benefits. Medicare Part D - the drug benefit created in 2005 that is entirely private - came in dramatically under cost forecasts.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > Because it's worked pretty well for Medicare and Medicaid? Large portions of both were privatized through Medicare Advantage and Managed Medicaid. The gov't pays private companies a flat rate per patient who selects their plan. Yeah, Original Medicare is pretty awful - I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who's able to get a Medicare Advantage plan. It's not just the cost-of-care and the overall expense to the patient (even though Medicare Advantage tends to win out on both of those aspects as well). It's that Original Medicare is a horribly frustrating experience for the patient as well. Of course, most people (especially most people under the age of 65) don't understand the difference, and when they think about Medicare, they think of a publicly-run program, even though around 40% of the Medicare population is on a Medicare Advantage plan.

red_blobs 10y ago

"It absolutely is scary to imagine being sick even with insurance. Without insurance, forget about it" Hospitals are required to take care of you, even if you have no insurance in the US. If you get a bill you cannot afford, you can negotiate a much lower rate with the hospital (I have done this and my family members have also done this). I run my own business and so I need to pay for myself and my spouses healthcare. Obamacare actually made things worse for me. It doubled my costs (which was promised not to happen) and I was forced out of an otherwise great plan. Getting sick is not even an issue. Medication is fairly inexpensive and if I have major surgery, I will only be out a couple thousand (the cost of a laptop). I have many relatives in Canada and the only reason the system works there is because it borders the US. They get all of their regular care paid for by their taxes and the middle class drive over the border and get major surgery done. The waiting lines are pretty long for most major surgeries and many older people die before they actually get it. The government there continues to promote getting checkups for specific diseases and disorders later and later in life because they don't have the facilities to get it done in a timely fashion for everyone. NHS isn't the panacea everyone makes it out to be. There are no free lunches and when it comes down to it, a finite resource like healthcare has to have a filter/limiter. Since the majority of government run services are not that efficient and will not be able to keep up with demand or technology, it's much better to have a free-market/private care solution. I agree with the sentiment of your post. We need to get rid of the bloated government-supported insurance companies and let the free market decide the price of everything..and offer a form of insurance to the poorest.

PaulAJ 10y ago
"Hospitals are required to take care of you, even if you have no insurance in the US." Trouble is, that only applies to emergencies. If you just want to see the doctor about the funny lump you have to pay first. "We need to get rid of the bloated government-supported insurance companies and let the free market decide the price of everything." So when I break a leg I should pay the ambulance to drive around different hospitals collecting quotes for the treatment? This doesn't work for a number of reasons: 1: Most obviously, urgent treatment is urgent. Collecting quotes will take time. 2: Hospitals won't give a quotation for medical treatment. They prefer a cost+ situation, partly because they then make money no matter the outcome, and partly because the costs are so variable that you can't estimate the cost. Just how much is that funny lump going to cost? After a few $K of tests you might be able to put a lower bound on it, but not an upper bound. 3: Medical costs for something serious are bankruptingly large for most people. One serious illness and you have to remortgage your house. Insurance is the only option, but then people at serious risk of illness or injury are more likely to take out insurance, and people who are already ill can't get it or change it. Imagine if you have epilepsy: every few months you wake up in ER and they hand you a $5,000 bill. No insurer will touch you.

sofaofthedamned 10y ago

I couldn't imagine living like that. We bitch and complain about the NHS in the UK but bloody hell I can't think of other systems that are better. I worry about losing my job and looking after gf/son in the aftermath like when I was made redundant from CSCO last year. But i've never had to pile on top of those worries having to worry about an illness taking my redundancy money and savings. (I'm a Brit btw)

mempko 10y ago

It's impossible to have a market for healthcare.

splintercell 10y ago
Why?

malz 10y ago

>"I honestly live in fear of having an accident or getting sick here in America." Hmm, I live in fear of getting sick in Cameroon or Honduras. Maybe we're afraid of different things.

cylinder 10y ago
Ah America, always comparing ourselves to third world countries.
- Normal_gaussian 10y ago
  Well in some places it is, in some places it isn't. I have had to stop considering the USA a country in the same way I view most other places. I have a suspicion that China may be the same kind of entity but I am not knowledgeable enough to say for sure.

jrnichols 10y ago

" Insurance companies still have too much power and they call the shots, not the doctors/hospitals." This is where the plan that Trump has makes sense. It takes away a lot of the decisions from the insurance companies and puts it back with the healthcare providers. In addition to letting the existing insurance companies compete across state lines.

darkhorn 10y ago

Better than being communist! /s

arcticbull 10y ago

> America still has one of the best facilities in the world... Not really, at #31 in the WHO rankings [1], it's not even close to the best. At #1 in per capita expenditures, it's also wildly inefficient. For half the per-capita expenditure Canada covers all its citizens. The US spends $8713 per person, per year on healthcare, where Canada spends $4429. [2] The result is a very comparable quality healthcare system (#30 vs. #31 in [1]) that covers everyone. The truth is allowing for profit in a social security program is by definition allowing for inefficiency. Socialized systems do not need to spend money on advertising, on individual billing/accounting systems, or on profits. Nor should they, IMO. Social programs are for everyone. There's plenty of other businesses out there people can profit from. Caring for people when they need it most shouldn't be one of them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_rank... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...