5 ms·

This reflects in health care as well. American health care costs about twice as much as it does in every other first-world nation. Those systems run the gamut f

by beat 9y ago

This reflects in health care as well. American health care costs about twice as much as it does in every other first-world nation. Those systems run the gamut from fully socialist to mostly privatized, but they all share a common feature - they provide universal coverage at half the cost of the American system. That says there's something uniquely broken in our model. Infrastructure? Same thing. There's something distinctly American in how slow and expensive it is. These are systemic issues, not some single-cause thing that [liberals|conservatives] can finger-point to a partisan villain.

fivestar 9y ago
But bear in mind what you just said IS NOT a valid argument for socialized medicine--it is an argument for market reform, or for looking at what is really going on in healthcare (hint: Wall Street).
- epistasis 9y ago
  Why do you feel the need to point this out, when he mentions mostly privatized and socialized in the same sentence? You may as well have said that it IS NOT a valid argument for mostly privatized medicine.
davidw 9y ago
> mostly privatized Where's that?
- abalashov 9y ago
  Everywhere outside the "developed world". By the numbers, the global norm is free-market healthcare, where the patient directly pays the doctor. And yet, even that delivers a cost structure that is infinitely preferable to our circus over here. I personally favour socialised medicine. The point is that whichever extreme you go to, it's going to be better than the morbidly obese, hyperinflated, worst-of-all-worlds catastrophe in the US.
  - davidw 9y ago
    Yes, I realize that in the 'developing' world that's the norm, but the parent comment mentioned 'first world' countries.
- beat 9y ago
  Japan's system is over 60% privately funded, using employer-based private insurance not radically different from the US system. Providers are also more private than public, and the system does not distinguish between private and public providers. Where Japan differs is strict price controls - all medical procedures and products cost a fixed price, set by a government panel. This helps guarantee that the various private health care providers can make a profit and stay in business, but are not profiteering or abusing customers.
- goodcanadian 9y ago
  Switzerland might be a good example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland): Healthcare in Switzerland is universal and is regulated by the Swiss Federal Law on Health Insurance. There are no free state-provided health services, but private health insurance is compulsory for all persons residing in Switzerland (within three months of taking up residence or being born in the country).
  - davidw 9y ago
    Interesting - the article doesn't seem to mention what happens if you're indigent. Also looks like it is highly regulated, between required coverage, not discriminating against existing conditions, and the "copay" (US term): > and by a charge of 10% of the costs over and above the excess. This is known as the retention, and is up to a maximum of 700CHF (PPP-adjusted $429) per year. That is absolute peanuts in terms of costs in the US.
  - wcummings 9y ago
    How does this compare to the ACA, which also features a mandate?
    - beat 9y ago
      It's complicated. But I think it's important to note here that, pre-ACA, the American system had two major flaws - high cost, and incomplete coverage. The ACA chose to address coverage first, rather than cost. The CDC reported the results here: "More recently, the percentage of uninsured adults aged 18 to 64 decreased, from 22.3% in 2010 to 11.9% in the first 3 months of 2016. During this 6-year period, corresponding increases were seen in both public and private coverage among adults aged 18 to 64."
  - jonknee 9y ago
    It's privatized, but not private like you would think of in the US. For example, insurers aren't allowed to profit off of the basic insurance everyone is required to get, they can only profit off of expanded coverage. They also have Medicare-style price controls which is obvious, but not private in the sense we use in the US.
- apexalpha 9y ago
  The Netherlands has mandatory private insurance policies. Obamacare is very similar. Just more regulated.

by beat 9y ago

fivestar 9y ago

But bear in mind what you just said IS NOT a valid argument for socialized medicine--it is an argument for market reform, or for looking at what is really going on in healthcare (hint: Wall Street).

epistasis 9y ago
Why do you feel the need to point this out, when he mentions mostly privatized and socialized in the same sentence? You may as well have said that it IS NOT a valid argument for mostly privatized medicine.

davidw 9y ago

> mostly privatized Where's that?

abalashov 9y ago
Everywhere outside the "developed world". By the numbers, the global norm is free-market healthcare, where the patient directly pays the doctor. And yet, even that delivers a cost structure that is infinitely preferable to our circus over here. I personally favour socialised medicine. The point is that whichever extreme you go to, it's going to be better than the morbidly obese, hyperinflated, worst-of-all-worlds catastrophe in the US.
- davidw 9y ago
  Yes, I realize that in the 'developing' world that's the norm, but the parent comment mentioned 'first world' countries.
beat 9y ago
Japan's system is over 60% privately funded, using employer-based private insurance not radically different from the US system. Providers are also more private than public, and the system does not distinguish between private and public providers. Where Japan differs is strict price controls - all medical procedures and products cost a fixed price, set by a government panel. This helps guarantee that the various private health care providers can make a profit and stay in business, but are not profiteering or abusing customers.
goodcanadian 9y ago
Switzerland might be a good example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland): Healthcare in Switzerland is universal and is regulated by the Swiss Federal Law on Health Insurance. There are no free state-provided health services, but private health insurance is compulsory for all persons residing in Switzerland (within three months of taking up residence or being born in the country).
- davidw 9y ago
  Interesting - the article doesn't seem to mention what happens if you're indigent. Also looks like it is highly regulated, between required coverage, not discriminating against existing conditions, and the "copay" (US term): > and by a charge of 10% of the costs over and above the excess. This is known as the retention, and is up to a maximum of 700CHF (PPP-adjusted $429) per year. That is absolute peanuts in terms of costs in the US.
- wcummings 9y ago
  How does this compare to the ACA, which also features a mandate?
  - beat 9y ago
    It's complicated. But I think it's important to note here that, pre-ACA, the American system had two major flaws - high cost, and incomplete coverage. The ACA chose to address coverage first, rather than cost. The CDC reported the results here: "More recently, the percentage of uninsured adults aged 18 to 64 decreased, from 22.3% in 2010 to 11.9% in the first 3 months of 2016. During this 6-year period, corresponding increases were seen in both public and private coverage among adults aged 18 to 64."
- jonknee 9y ago
  It's privatized, but not private like you would think of in the US. For example, insurers aren't allowed to profit off of the basic insurance everyone is required to get, they can only profit off of expanded coverage. They also have Medicare-style price controls which is obvious, but not private in the sense we use in the US.
apexalpha 9y ago
The Netherlands has mandatory private insurance policies. Obamacare is very similar. Just more regulated.