5 ms·

The US health care system is the least efficient of all the developed world, in terms of results vs expense. In many sectors, a competitive market gives the bes

The US health care system is the least efficient of all the developed world, in terms of results vs expense. In many sectors, a competitive market gives the best results. In health care, that's just not the case. The free market isn't the be all, end all solution that free market advocates want people to think it is.

trentnix 8y ago
First, US health care is hardly a free market. Second, the free market certainly isn’t a be all, end all solution. Most advocates of free market economics would agree with you. It’s just simply better than any of the other solutions man has dreamed up so far, that’s all.
- danmaz74 8y ago
  Is the free market the best solution to have an army? Or a judiciary system? It's not. So, it's not better than any other solutions for all problems.
  - ernst_klim 8y ago
    >Is the free market the best solution to have an army? It definitely is. As in "I'm not going to pay for bombing other countries, thanks."
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> The US health care system is the least efficient of all the developed world, in terms of results vs expense. In many sectors, a competitive market gives the best results. In health care, that's just not the case. Interestingly, your example undermines your case, because the US system is also less cost efficient than systems that are more market-oriented than it is. The US healthcare system is uniquely problematic. It's not a markets vs. socialism problem, it's a unique damage that arises from trying to do things at such a scale. Everywhere else in the world it's things the size of individual US states doing healthcare regulation, e.g. a median US state like Oregon has a GDP larger than Portugal or Greece. In the US it happens at the level of the entire union, which screws things up something terrible because it's well past the point that economies of scale give diminishing returns but it grows the public and private bureaucracies so large that they have their own inertia and gravity. If the only thing the US did was repeal all federal healthcare laws and hand the whole thing over to the individual states, it would probably cut costs significantly. And then California could have single payer and New Jersey could require employer-provided coverage and Wyoming could let the market handle it entirely and probably all of them would do better than the feds are currently doing.
gingabriska 8y ago
I used to live on Poland and suffer from depressive disorders, my country has free universal healthcare but it didn't improve my depression and most docs felt as if they don't care and don't know what to do but since I've moved to states, bought private insecure and now undergoing treatment, my situation has vastly improved. People here seem to care more than they did back in home. I don't like free healthcare because it often time can't even cover the minimum of what people need. Many people who knew better went to Private Doctors even when we had free healthcare because they don't trust free healthcare and attitude of those healthcare provider. You end up wasting a lot of time in such system.
ernst_klim 8y ago
>The US health care system is the least efficient of all the developed world On paper maybe. As a person who lived in Russia and lives in Germany I disagree completely. How do you measure efficiency? Healthcare workers are blatantly underpaid in many european countries, waiting queues are getting longer, and the next potential chancellor is literally suggesting conscription as a solution for medical personal shortages.
anthony_barker 8y ago
That may work with a system where the consumer has a choice. Basically clients don't and end up overpaying and getting the run around by private insurance. Best is a balanced system with a mixture of private and public with public providing most of the infrastructure. US life expectancy is lower than most northern European countries (plus Canada) or Northern Asian countries and costs are higher. That said some EU countries like Switzerland have mostly private systems. The only downside of government healthcare is generally taxes are added to unhealthy foods, tobacco and booze.

trentnix 8y ago

First, US health care is hardly a free market. Second, the free market certainly isn’t a be all, end all solution. Most advocates of free market economics would agree with you. It’s just simply better than any of the other solutions man has dreamed up so far, that’s all.

danmaz74 8y ago
Is the free market the best solution to have an army? Or a judiciary system? It's not. So, it's not better than any other solutions for all problems.
- ernst_klim 8y ago
  >Is the free market the best solution to have an army? It definitely is. As in "I'm not going to pay for bombing other countries, thanks."

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> The US health care system is the least efficient of all the developed world, in terms of results vs expense. In many sectors, a competitive market gives the best results. In health care, that's just not the case. Interestingly, your example undermines your case, because the US system is also less cost efficient than systems that are more market-oriented than it is. The US healthcare system is uniquely problematic. It's not a markets vs. socialism problem, it's a unique damage that arises from trying to do things at such a scale. Everywhere else in the world it's things the size of individual US states doing healthcare regulation, e.g. a median US state like Oregon has a GDP larger than Portugal or Greece. In the US it happens at the level of the entire union, which screws things up something terrible because it's well past the point that economies of scale give diminishing returns but it grows the public and private bureaucracies so large that they have their own inertia and gravity. If the only thing the US did was repeal all federal healthcare laws and hand the whole thing over to the individual states, it would probably cut costs significantly. And then California could have single payer and New Jersey could require employer-provided coverage and Wyoming could let the market handle it entirely and probably all of them would do better than the feds are currently doing.

gingabriska 8y ago

I used to live on Poland and suffer from depressive disorders, my country has free universal healthcare but it didn't improve my depression and most docs felt as if they don't care and don't know what to do but since I've moved to states, bought private insecure and now undergoing treatment, my situation has vastly improved. People here seem to care more than they did back in home. I don't like free healthcare because it often time can't even cover the minimum of what people need. Many people who knew better went to Private Doctors even when we had free healthcare because they don't trust free healthcare and attitude of those healthcare provider. You end up wasting a lot of time in such system.

ernst_klim 8y ago

>The US health care system is the least efficient of all the developed world On paper maybe. As a person who lived in Russia and lives in Germany I disagree completely. How do you measure efficiency? Healthcare workers are blatantly underpaid in many european countries, waiting queues are getting longer, and the next potential chancellor is literally suggesting conscription as a solution for medical personal shortages.

anthony_barker 8y ago

That may work with a system where the consumer has a choice. Basically clients don't and end up overpaying and getting the run around by private insurance. Best is a balanced system with a mixture of private and public with public providing most of the infrastructure. US life expectancy is lower than most northern European countries (plus Canada) or Northern Asian countries and costs are higher. That said some EU countries like Switzerland have mostly private systems. The only downside of government healthcare is generally taxes are added to unhealthy foods, tobacco and booze.