3 ms·

It's not ignored. I don't know much about the German system, but I'm an immigrant from the UK and I much prefer the US system to the NHS, and I hear similar ho

It's not ignored. I don't know much about the German system, but I'm an immigrant from the UK and I much prefer the US system to the NHS, and I hear similar horror stories about Canada. Which is not to say the US system is good, just better. In the US, when I need a doctor, I get to see one right away. If the doctor recommends an MRI or ultrasound, I get it right away. No six month waits, no cancelled surgeries, no doctor strikes (!), no government deciding how to prioritize my medical needs, etc. What it ultimately comes down to is that medical resources are scarce (and always will be while medical technology is improving and thus some care is expensive), and having the government allocate them can be inefficient (governments are generally inefficient due to lack of competition, as are systems where the customer is disconnected from the cost). And yes, I care more about my own health care and that of my kids than I do about the health care of some stranger thousands of miles away. I have okay corporate health insurance and so the system works better for me than for some. (Some would argue that regulation rather than economic freedom are to blame for those people's worse experiences, but I'm not going to get into that other than to acknowledge it.) You might disagree with some of my perspective, but the snooty attitude that Americans are oblivious morons is unwarranted.

deiznof 7y ago
If you "needed" an MRI right away, you wouldn't be waiting 6 months, so you probably didn't need one. Not urgently, at least.
LeifCarrotson 7y ago
There can (and typically should) be a difference in one's personal preference and what one would advocate as public policy. Of course I am more emotionally attached to my own health and my kids than I care about one hypothetical unknown stranger thousands of miles away, just as you are. But if I stop and think for a moment I can't rationally justify a system that works well for 1 human (me) and works poorly for 100 other humans. As a relatively wealthy and well-educated American with great insurance (and easy access to other jobs with benefit packages should my employment situation change), yes, I benefit from the American system. But I wouldn't vote for representatives that advocated it. We're not yet approaching something that's a little bit worse for 99% of the country and a lot better for the remaining 1%, and I'm sure we will have many fun debates as to where we should balance the equation as we approach that point. I would have to be pretty selfish to vote for something that's objectively worse for most people in my country. However, it would in fact take an oblivious moron to advocate something that's simultaneously worse on average and also worse for them individually, and yet that's what we have in American politics today.
jfk13 7y ago
> I'm an immigrant from the UK and I much prefer the US system to the NHS Interestingly, my wife -- who moved from the US to the UK a decade ago, and has had quite a bit of interaction with the healthcare system since she's been here -- feels exactly the opposite.
- tapland 7y ago
  Same here with fiancee moving from the US. Here we finally got the MRIs that were recommended but family couldn't afford years ago. Sure, we had to wait for 3 months and the doctor's visit + MRI cost us a total of $35 (hadn't reached the $120 yearly out of pocket limit) but it was a known non-emergency.
Ensorceled 7y ago
I'm quite familiar with the US health system; it's fantastic, best in the world for the top few percent, as good as the rest of the world for another group, poor to non existent for the rest of the population. Your fantastic health care comes at the expense of your poorer neighbours having essentially no health care. That you're ok with that could be considered a snooty attitude as well. My point is that these other systems work, maybe people working at the FAANG companies, in financial services etc. might see a slight decrease in their quality of care, but the systems would all still work and would be much less of a share of your GDP.

deiznof 7y ago

If you "needed" an MRI right away, you wouldn't be waiting 6 months, so you probably didn't need one. Not urgently, at least.

LeifCarrotson 7y ago

There can (and typically should) be a difference in one's personal preference and what one would advocate as public policy. Of course I am more emotionally attached to my own health and my kids than I care about one hypothetical unknown stranger thousands of miles away, just as you are. But if I stop and think for a moment I can't rationally justify a system that works well for 1 human (me) and works poorly for 100 other humans. As a relatively wealthy and well-educated American with great insurance (and easy access to other jobs with benefit packages should my employment situation change), yes, I benefit from the American system. But I wouldn't vote for representatives that advocated it. We're not yet approaching something that's a little bit worse for 99% of the country and a lot better for the remaining 1%, and I'm sure we will have many fun debates as to where we should balance the equation as we approach that point. I would have to be pretty selfish to vote for something that's objectively worse for most people in my country. However, it would in fact take an oblivious moron to advocate something that's simultaneously worse on average and also worse for them individually, and yet that's what we have in American politics today.

jfk13 7y ago

> I'm an immigrant from the UK and I much prefer the US system to the NHS Interestingly, my wife -- who moved from the US to the UK a decade ago, and has had quite a bit of interaction with the healthcare system since she's been here -- feels exactly the opposite.

tapland 7y ago
Same here with fiancee moving from the US. Here we finally got the MRIs that were recommended but family couldn't afford years ago. Sure, we had to wait for 3 months and the doctor's visit + MRI cost us a total of $35 (hadn't reached the $120 yearly out of pocket limit) but it was a known non-emergency.

Ensorceled 7y ago

I'm quite familiar with the US health system; it's fantastic, best in the world for the top few percent, as good as the rest of the world for another group, poor to non existent for the rest of the population. Your fantastic health care comes at the expense of your poorer neighbours having essentially no health care. That you're ok with that could be considered a snooty attitude as well. My point is that these other systems work, maybe people working at the FAANG companies, in financial services etc. might see a slight decrease in their quality of care, but the systems would all still work and would be much less of a share of your GDP.