4 ms·

It is far from solved in Europe. The problem with single-payer healthcare systems that are common here is that you cannot really bypass the supply-demand law. S

by mamon 6y ago

It is far from solved in Europe. The problem with single-payer healthcare systems that are common here is that you cannot really bypass the supply-demand law. Since European governments are paying for healthcare for everyone, and effectively are setting the prices of healthcare services, keeping them low, the nature compenstates by limiting supply. So, in general, you can get your surgery for free, but you will have to wait 2 years for the next free time slot to have it. So what you save in money, you lose in the lost time.

666lumberjack 6y ago
Given an equal amount of expenditure, a single-payer healthcare system will always be able to deliver a better standard of care than a privatised one because of the greater negotiating leverage and the removal of a profit margin for the insurance provider. It may be the case that in countries which spend less on health per capita than the US wait times tend to be longer on average (and I'm pretty sure the data says this isn't universally true), but that's not an inherent property of the single-payer system - and wait times for someone who would never be able to afford the surgery they need under the American system are infinitely shorter.
- mamon 6y ago
  Inherent property of single-payer system is that medicine professionals salaries are low compared to US, so there's strong incentive for said specialists to emigrate (or for wannabe doctors to pursue other career paths in the first place). Countries with such systems suffer constant shortage of doctors and nurses, further limiting the supply of healthcare services. Truth is, almost all progress in medicine happens in the US, which effectively subsidises healthcare for the rest of the world this way.
Ma8ee 6y ago
> that you cannot really bypass the supply-demand law. So you really think that the demand for, say, hip replacements, will grow indefinitely because the recipients don’t have to pay money for it? > the nature compensates by limiting supply. Which nature, and how does it limit supply? I can’t think of any reasonable interpretation of that statement that makes any sense. There's nothing inherent in single payer systems that forces long wait times. And in my experience (Sweden), when you need care you get it. That in contrast with that it proved almost impossible to get to see an in-network doctor when I lived in Michigan.

by mamon 6y ago

666lumberjack 6y ago

Given an equal amount of expenditure, a single-payer healthcare system will always be able to deliver a better standard of care than a privatised one because of the greater negotiating leverage and the removal of a profit margin for the insurance provider. It may be the case that in countries which spend less on health per capita than the US wait times tend to be longer on average (and I'm pretty sure the data says this isn't universally true), but that's not an inherent property of the single-payer system - and wait times for someone who would never be able to afford the surgery they need under the American system are infinitely shorter.

mamon 6y ago
Inherent property of single-payer system is that medicine professionals salaries are low compared to US, so there's strong incentive for said specialists to emigrate (or for wannabe doctors to pursue other career paths in the first place). Countries with such systems suffer constant shortage of doctors and nurses, further limiting the supply of healthcare services. Truth is, almost all progress in medicine happens in the US, which effectively subsidises healthcare for the rest of the world this way.

Ma8ee 6y ago

> that you cannot really bypass the supply-demand law. So you really think that the demand for, say, hip replacements, will grow indefinitely because the recipients don’t have to pay money for it? > the nature compensates by limiting supply. Which nature, and how does it limit supply? I can’t think of any reasonable interpretation of that statement that makes any sense. There's nothing inherent in single payer systems that forces long wait times. And in my experience (Sweden), when you need care you get it. That in contrast with that it proved almost impossible to get to see an in-network doctor when I lived in Michigan.