3 ms·

I have a lot of criticism for the Scandinavian economic model, with 50% of the working population employed in the public sector and a >50% tax burden on average

by marvin 7y ago

I have a lot of criticism for the Scandinavian economic model, with 50% of the working population employed in the public sector and a >50% tax burden on average. This will be visible if someone happens to read my HN comments once in a while. But I have to say that this purely market economic view of life-saving healthcare, concluding "there is no economically viable way to ensure that everyone has access to life-saving aid, because participation has to be voluntary and that means insurance will be prohibitably expensive" is deeply cruel. Honest question, is it broadly representative for Americans to take this view without considering the human consequences to someone who is unlucky with genetics, family or circumstances? Or is the question just ignored until a problem hits? It's really very simple to solve this in a humane way. Government pays for all healthcare that's necessary to survive and thrive to a humanely minimum standard of care, either providing the services themselves or employing private-sector partners to do so. This is paid through taxation of everyone, spreading the cost on the entire population. Private insurance or paying for elective procedures is still an option for those who have the means and wish to do so. There will be some upheaval because the insurance sector and treatment centers will be in a dramatically worse negotiation position, but it's worth it for the public good.

conanbatt 7y ago
> Honest question, is it broadly representative for Americans I don't think so, but what is unique about americans and the healthcare market is very unique sensitivity to quality and access: the idea that you could to a second rate doctor goes very contrary to american culture, but is common currency in socialized health systems, where you are numb to quality as everything has the same price. The US has a private offering called HMO which basically covers everything, and it's had mixed results: even Michael Moore made a documentary where people said "HMO's are evil". Why? Because the idea that you have to be put on a waiting list or might be denied care you want on utilization is unthinkable for americans. That is one cultural aspect, but there are many more that make America Health system unique. > Government pays for all healthcare that's necessary to survive and thrive to a humanely minimum standard of care... It's a solution. Maybe because of the above, no democrat has put it forward: it would be unpopular to tell people they will get free sub-standard, sub-access care. This solution already exists: the VA is basically that. A very low quality service but highly effective. I don't have much sympathy for H. insurance, but if the state wanted to abolish them, they should buy them, not outlaw them. This is so out of how America operates that I don't think it could go through the senate. Personally, i think insurance is the last thing to look at in the space..

by marvin 7y ago

conanbatt 7y ago

> Honest question, is it broadly representative for Americans I don't think so, but what is unique about americans and the healthcare market is very unique sensitivity to quality and access: the idea that you could to a second rate doctor goes very contrary to american culture, but is common currency in socialized health systems, where you are numb to quality as everything has the same price. The US has a private offering called HMO which basically covers everything, and it's had mixed results: even Michael Moore made a documentary where people said "HMO's are evil". Why? Because the idea that you have to be put on a waiting list or might be denied care you want on utilization is unthinkable for americans. That is one cultural aspect, but there are many more that make America Health system unique. > Government pays for all healthcare that's necessary to survive and thrive to a humanely minimum standard of care... It's a solution. Maybe because of the above, no democrat has put it forward: it would be unpopular to tell people they will get free sub-standard, sub-access care. This solution already exists: the VA is basically that. A very low quality service but highly effective. I don't have much sympathy for H. insurance, but if the state wanted to abolish them, they should buy them, not outlaw them. This is so out of how America operates that I don't think it could go through the senate. Personally, i think insurance is the last thing to look at in the space..