3 ms·

You're missing the entire thesis of the article. The thesis is that Finland (et al)'s education and healthcare systems are more efficient because they are socia

You're missing the entire thesis of the article. The thesis is that Finland (et al)'s education and healthcare systems are more efficient because they are socialized. Given one binary comparison between condition A and condition B (Finland vs. US), some causal speculation is justified. Given dozens of such comparisons, all coming out to the same result, your case becomes anti-empirical. soru's comment on this thread provides one nice rational model that tries to explain why. But the much more important point is that our rationalizations are slaves to the empirical data. Not the other way around.

ordinaryperson 8y ago
> Given dozens of such comparisons, all coming out to the same result, your case becomes anti-empirical. As others in this thread have pointed out, Finland vs. US is not a good comparison, Europe vs the US would be. We can socialize medicine in individual states with good results (see: MA) but US-wide? With 332+ million people? With all the differences in costs of living in different parts of the country? When the EU rolls out a single-payer system for the entire Eurozone then we'll have something to compare against but the entire nation of Finland has less people (5.7 million) than New York City (8 million) and is a monoculture, to boot.
- fsloth 8y ago
  "When the EU rolls out a single-payer system for the entire Eurozone..." Basically the national health systems inside EU co-operate not entirely dissimilarly to a european single payer system: http://www.kela.fi/web/en/european-health-insurance-card http://www.kela.fi/web/en/european-health-insurance-card Given that the mishmash of european systems has much wider variance probably than US internal schemes do, I find the argument 'but US is too" complex not entirely convincing. Given how much of the current scientific and technological context of our civilization comes from the US, and there are lot of single payer schemes working in other countries, I would find the "we don't want to" argument more convincing than "it's too complex for us". Anyway, I don't know the nuts and bolts of any of the health care systems but generally when political will manifests itself people are capable of all sorts of things if they are within the realm of the laws of physics. It's not like health care was rocket science. The best bang for buck comes from providing just the cheapest things modern medicine has come with within the reach of all. It's not surgeries and MRI machines and all that capital intensive stuff. A nurse with a basic kit could achieve all sorts of improved health outcomes in his/her patients.

ordinaryperson 8y ago

> Given dozens of such comparisons, all coming out to the same result, your case becomes anti-empirical. As others in this thread have pointed out, Finland vs. US is not a good comparison, Europe vs the US would be. We can socialize medicine in individual states with good results (see: MA) but US-wide? With 332+ million people? With all the differences in costs of living in different parts of the country? When the EU rolls out a single-payer system for the entire Eurozone then we'll have something to compare against but the entire nation of Finland has less people (5.7 million) than New York City (8 million) and is a monoculture, to boot.

fsloth 8y ago
"When the EU rolls out a single-payer system for the entire Eurozone..." Basically the national health systems inside EU co-operate not entirely dissimilarly to a european single payer system: http://www.kela.fi/web/en/european-health-insurance-card http://www.kela.fi/web/en/european-health-insurance-card Given that the mishmash of european systems has much wider variance probably than US internal schemes do, I find the argument 'but US is too" complex not entirely convincing. Given how much of the current scientific and technological context of our civilization comes from the US, and there are lot of single payer schemes working in other countries, I would find the "we don't want to" argument more convincing than "it's too complex for us". Anyway, I don't know the nuts and bolts of any of the health care systems but generally when political will manifests itself people are capable of all sorts of things if they are within the realm of the laws of physics. It's not like health care was rocket science. The best bang for buck comes from providing just the cheapest things modern medicine has come with within the reach of all. It's not surgeries and MRI machines and all that capital intensive stuff. A nurse with a basic kit could achieve all sorts of improved health outcomes in his/her patients.