6 ms·

Giving free healthcare is a good step, but the important question is how good will it be and how much will be covered. Brazil has 100% of its population (210M

Giving free healthcare is a good step, but the important question is how good will it be and how much will be covered. Brazil has 100% of its population (210M people) covered by free, single-payer, universal healthcare, resulting in a life expectancy of 75 years (US is 79, Japan and Switzerland with 83 IIRC). But your experience can vary dramatically. It all depends on how much money is actually being put on it (in healthcare-costs-PPP-adjusted $/capita).

maym86 9y ago
Still much better then no healthcare if you couldn't afford it before.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  Oh, sure, no question about that.
mickelsen 9y ago
Not necessarily a counterpoint but Chile's dual system -private and public, both with copay for most- gives them a life expectancy of 81.79 years, surpassing a lot of more developed countries with free universal healthcare.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  Brazil's is also dual, everyone gets covered by the public system, but there are plenty of private systems. And Chile is always a special case, the combination of natural resources, small population and good public systems does wonder for the country. Despite the extreme differences, I tend to compare Chile to the Nordic countries more than with LatAm. Not sure if that's scalable to larger countries, which is always the big question.
  - sol_remmy 9y ago
    > And Chile is always a special case, the combination of natural resources, small population and good public systems does wonder for the country. Despite the extreme differences, I tend to compare Chile to the Nordic countries more than with LatAm. You are flat out wrong with this comparison. Chile has one of the lowest tax burdens in the world. It can be accurately compared to either Hong Kong or Singapore. Average tax burden by country: https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/OECD_Tax_Wedge_Charts-04.png https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/OECD_Tax_Wedge_C... Scandinavian countries have 4x higher taxes than Chile. They are polar opposites.
    - rhizome 9y ago
      While some promote tax policy as the most important (sometimes the only) measure of national value, it actually doesn't make them "opposites."
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      > You are flat out wrong with this comparison. Do you really think that I am comparing tax burdens? Sorry, but you're flat wrong with your understanding of what I'm comparing, which I listed in case it wasn't obvious enough. But apparently writing down what I was comparing wasn't obvious enough for you.
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      It's not the taxes that makes everyone like the Scandinavian countries. If Chile can have government programs with comparable return or results to the Scandinavian countries at a fraction of the cost then they're a hell of a lot more interesting from a policy perspectives. Comparing governments based on taxes they levy is like comparing modes of transportation based on the amount of fuel they consume.
      - WoodenChair 9y ago
        > Comparing governments based on taxes they levy is like comparing modes of transportation based on the amount of fuel they consume. I don't think this is a very good analogy. We compare modes of transportation based on the amount of fuel they consume all the time. Unless I'm missing your point? And not everyone likes the Scandinavian countries. They are blessed by very homogeneous populations, in a region unscathed by war the past 70 years, with abundant natural resources, and stable governments. I wouldn't exactly consider them a good model for the rest of the world and I'm not sure what there is to like about them beyond these natural advantages and the fact that most of their people are very nice... Lucky would be more like it. For example, Norway, the richest per capita of them derives "Export revenues from oil and gas have risen to almost 50% of total exports and constitute more than 20% of the GDP."[0] not exactly something the rest of the world can model. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Economy
- vidarh 9y ago
  Almost every universal healthcare system is has some degree of mix of private and public. Norway is on the far extreme with it's strict restrictions on private healthcare. Almost every other country has private healthcare insurance as at least an option. The question tends to be how much you end up contributing towards public healthcare if you take out a private option - ranging from no difference (you pay the same taxes no matter what), to only healthcare for poor/unemployed coming out of general taxation.
  - tyfon 9y ago
    Strict restrictions? I can chose whatever hospital I want and the government will pay for it regardless as long as a GP has referred me to them. If you want you can just pay out of your pocket as well without going through a GP. There is even a portal where you can search for your ailment and choose hospital (private or public) based on their waiting lists. https://helsenorge.no/velg-behandlingssted https://helsenorge.no/velg-behandlingssted The government also buys up a lot of the private spots to reduce public waiting lists. Last time I was in due to sinus infection, I went to a private and a public clinic both paid for in full by the government.
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      Restrictions aren't just on users, but on providers as well. If you don't see restrictions as an user, it's because most of the restrictions are on the providers. And nothing wrong with that, I actually support that model, just like in Switzerland, where healthcare is private, but mandated by the government and heavily regulated (with less-regulated private complimentary insurance options). It allows for innovation and competition between providers, without the harm to users due to the asymmetry of power. Oh, and births are free.
      - tyfon 9y ago
        Yeah, the the post I replied to claimed there were restrictions on private clinics specifically, but the public clinics/hospitals have to follow the same rules. Also: are there any places that charge for births???? That sounds ridiculous and insane to me.
moduspol 9y ago
In the US alone, life expectancy rates by county vary by as much as 20 years. It is a terrible metric for measuring a healthcare system.
ddebernardy 9y ago
Whichever way it is, it's still better than no healthcare.
cjalmeida 9y ago
An alternative to life expectancy at birth is looking at the life expectancy at later years. A 40y woman in Brazil actually has about the same expected age at death as an American (~81y). Expectancies for a 40y man, and for 20y at both ages are somewhat lower in Brazil. This is easy to explain due to deaths by violence and traffic accidents. Funny to see that despite being chronically underfunded AND spending way less per capita than the US, the end results are similar.
- hueving 9y ago
  Using life expectancies only gives you a view of healthcare preventing deaths. There is a vast distance between barely alive and a good quality of life.
eitally 9y ago
You can say this, but that doesn't mean it's high quality or used by anyone who has the option of private insurance.
Gibbon1 9y ago
> It all depends on how much money is actually being put on it Other hand a lot of public health stuff is really cheap as long as everyone gets it and it's timely. AKA people go to the hospital and get IV fluids and sent home vs going in two days later and spending a week in the ICU (or up and dying).

maym86 9y ago

Still much better then no healthcare if you couldn't afford it before.

ucaetano 9y ago
Oh, sure, no question about that.

mickelsen 9y ago

Not necessarily a counterpoint but Chile's dual system -private and public, both with copay for most- gives them a life expectancy of 81.79 years, surpassing a lot of more developed countries with free universal healthcare.

ucaetano 9y ago
Brazil's is also dual, everyone gets covered by the public system, but there are plenty of private systems. And Chile is always a special case, the combination of natural resources, small population and good public systems does wonder for the country. Despite the extreme differences, I tend to compare Chile to the Nordic countries more than with LatAm. Not sure if that's scalable to larger countries, which is always the big question.
- sol_remmy 9y ago
  > And Chile is always a special case, the combination of natural resources, small population and good public systems does wonder for the country. Despite the extreme differences, I tend to compare Chile to the Nordic countries more than with LatAm. You are flat out wrong with this comparison. Chile has one of the lowest tax burdens in the world. It can be accurately compared to either Hong Kong or Singapore. Average tax burden by country: https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/OECD_Tax_Wedge_Charts-04.png https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/OECD_Tax_Wedge_C... Scandinavian countries have 4x higher taxes than Chile. They are polar opposites.
  - rhizome 9y ago
    While some promote tax policy as the most important (sometimes the only) measure of national value, it actually doesn't make them "opposites."
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    > You are flat out wrong with this comparison. Do you really think that I am comparing tax burdens? Sorry, but you're flat wrong with your understanding of what I'm comparing, which I listed in case it wasn't obvious enough. But apparently writing down what I was comparing wasn't obvious enough for you.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    It's not the taxes that makes everyone like the Scandinavian countries. If Chile can have government programs with comparable return or results to the Scandinavian countries at a fraction of the cost then they're a hell of a lot more interesting from a policy perspectives. Comparing governments based on taxes they levy is like comparing modes of transportation based on the amount of fuel they consume.
    - WoodenChair 9y ago
      > Comparing governments based on taxes they levy is like comparing modes of transportation based on the amount of fuel they consume. I don't think this is a very good analogy. We compare modes of transportation based on the amount of fuel they consume all the time. Unless I'm missing your point? And not everyone likes the Scandinavian countries. They are blessed by very homogeneous populations, in a region unscathed by war the past 70 years, with abundant natural resources, and stable governments. I wouldn't exactly consider them a good model for the rest of the world and I'm not sure what there is to like about them beyond these natural advantages and the fact that most of their people are very nice... Lucky would be more like it. For example, Norway, the richest per capita of them derives "Export revenues from oil and gas have risen to almost 50% of total exports and constitute more than 20% of the GDP."[0] not exactly something the rest of the world can model. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Economy
vidarh 9y ago
Almost every universal healthcare system is has some degree of mix of private and public. Norway is on the far extreme with it's strict restrictions on private healthcare. Almost every other country has private healthcare insurance as at least an option. The question tends to be how much you end up contributing towards public healthcare if you take out a private option - ranging from no difference (you pay the same taxes no matter what), to only healthcare for poor/unemployed coming out of general taxation.
- tyfon 9y ago
  Strict restrictions? I can chose whatever hospital I want and the government will pay for it regardless as long as a GP has referred me to them. If you want you can just pay out of your pocket as well without going through a GP. There is even a portal where you can search for your ailment and choose hospital (private or public) based on their waiting lists. https://helsenorge.no/velg-behandlingssted https://helsenorge.no/velg-behandlingssted The government also buys up a lot of the private spots to reduce public waiting lists. Last time I was in due to sinus infection, I went to a private and a public clinic both paid for in full by the government.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    Restrictions aren't just on users, but on providers as well. If you don't see restrictions as an user, it's because most of the restrictions are on the providers. And nothing wrong with that, I actually support that model, just like in Switzerland, where healthcare is private, but mandated by the government and heavily regulated (with less-regulated private complimentary insurance options). It allows for innovation and competition between providers, without the harm to users due to the asymmetry of power. Oh, and births are free.
    - tyfon 9y ago
      Yeah, the the post I replied to claimed there were restrictions on private clinics specifically, but the public clinics/hospitals have to follow the same rules. Also: are there any places that charge for births???? That sounds ridiculous and insane to me.

moduspol 9y ago

In the US alone, life expectancy rates by county vary by as much as 20 years. It is a terrible metric for measuring a healthcare system.

ddebernardy 9y ago

Whichever way it is, it's still better than no healthcare.

cjalmeida 9y ago

An alternative to life expectancy at birth is looking at the life expectancy at later years. A 40y woman in Brazil actually has about the same expected age at death as an American (~81y). Expectancies for a 40y man, and for 20y at both ages are somewhat lower in Brazil. This is easy to explain due to deaths by violence and traffic accidents. Funny to see that despite being chronically underfunded AND spending way less per capita than the US, the end results are similar.

hueving 9y ago
Using life expectancies only gives you a view of healthcare preventing deaths. There is a vast distance between barely alive and a good quality of life.

eitally 9y ago

You can say this, but that doesn't mean it's high quality or used by anyone who has the option of private insurance.

Gibbon1 9y ago

> It all depends on how much money is actually being put on it Other hand a lot of public health stuff is really cheap as long as everyone gets it and it's timely. AKA people go to the hospital and get IV fluids and sent home vs going in two days later and spending a week in the ICU (or up and dying).