4 ms·

You should consider the possibility that you have the direction of causality reversed there.

by ende 8y ago

sgift 8y ago
Considering ... done. Comparison with other countries says: Not reversed.
andybak 8y ago
Trying to parse your suggested reversal. Do you mean "health care in most civilized countries costs half of what it does here system is the reason it is government-owned in those places"? Leaving aside from the fact that very few countries have wholly-government owned health care - this formulation doesn't make sense. Or is it the line about gouging you are referring to? Can you explain a bit more clearly what your point is? I haven't woken up enough yet to decipher your comment.
- ende 8y ago
  Certainly, and I apologize if my brief wording wasn't clear. > This may be the primary reason why health care in most civilized countries costs half of what it does here. There is a common conception that simply adopting one of the many different systems used in these other countries would immediately solve the cost problems in US healthcare by way of single payer price negotiating, but the problem that addresses doesn't tell the whole story of high healthcare cost in the US. It's not just US healthcare costs that are abnormally high but healthcare consumption - due in part somewhat to the defensive posture of medicine towards a tort heavy society, but also because healthcare consumers in the US simply demand more healthcare than consumers in other countries; (call it the Super Size Me effect?) So it's not necessarily the case that any kind of single payer system is going to change that culture of consumption. The systems used in other countries are largely possible due to different levels and modes of consumption. Mind you, I generally support some kind of single payer system for the US (preferably modeled after some combination of elements from Canada, France and Australia). But I'm bothered by these panacea arguments when it doesn't seem at all clear that such statements of causality can be convincingly made.

You should consider the possibility that you have the direction of causality reversed there.

by ende 8y ago

You should consider the possibility that you have the direction of causality reversed there.

sgift 8y ago

Considering ... done. Comparison with other countries says: Not reversed.

andybak 8y ago

Trying to parse your suggested reversal. Do you mean "health care in most civilized countries costs half of what it does here system is the reason it is government-owned in those places"? Leaving aside from the fact that very few countries have wholly-government owned health care - this formulation doesn't make sense. Or is it the line about gouging you are referring to? Can you explain a bit more clearly what your point is? I haven't woken up enough yet to decipher your comment.

ende 8y ago
Certainly, and I apologize if my brief wording wasn't clear. > This may be the primary reason why health care in most civilized countries costs half of what it does here. There is a common conception that simply adopting one of the many different systems used in these other countries would immediately solve the cost problems in US healthcare by way of single payer price negotiating, but the problem that addresses doesn't tell the whole story of high healthcare cost in the US. It's not just US healthcare costs that are abnormally high but healthcare consumption - due in part somewhat to the defensive posture of medicine towards a tort heavy society, but also because healthcare consumers in the US simply demand more healthcare than consumers in other countries; (call it the Super Size Me effect?) So it's not necessarily the case that any kind of single payer system is going to change that culture of consumption. The systems used in other countries are largely possible due to different levels and modes of consumption. Mind you, I generally support some kind of single payer system for the US (preferably modeled after some combination of elements from Canada, France and Australia). But I'm bothered by these panacea arguments when it doesn't seem at all clear that such statements of causality can be convincingly made.