3 ms·

I have a few thoughts on this: - If the waiting times are too long, then ultimately it's a supply issue which can be solved by increasing supply (i.e. more fun

by vore 6y ago

I have a few thoughts on this: - If the waiting times are too long, then ultimately it's a supply issue which can be solved by increasing supply (i.e. more funding). Of course, this is obviously easier said than done but it's not really an inherent problem of the system. - What would your grandmother do in a situation with a privatized system and she couldn't afford surgery? This isn't theoretical: this happens in the US all the time. While I agree that being blind for a year is not acceptable, it's only in certain positions of privilege in the US in the current system where you would even be treated and again is more inherently about funding than it is about an inherent fault of a socialized system. - I think that if you don't force everyone to pay in the system and allow for private healthcare, people (and politicians!) don't have incentive to improve the system because they can just take private insurance and ignore a languishing public system. The public system doesn't have to be bad, but creating a two-tier public/private system incentivizes people to not care about public healthcare.

mirkules 6y ago
The issue is that of incentive, to put it bluntly. What is the incentive of a medical provider to provide The Best Care Possible, when they know for sure there is no competition? You end up with a system whose only raison d’etre is to continue working as little as possible with no real progress. Yes, not being able to afford it is obviously a bigger issue than being blind for a year. In this case, she had the option to go to a private surgeon and get it taken care of for much more money. As for your last point, in a socialistic type of service, “progress” serves to elect public officials. In a capitalistic service, “progress” serves to make more money. Both of these approaches have their flaws; however, I would argue that progress is faster and service of higher quality when a government is not involved. The gov’t advantage is that it’s “cheaper” and thus more accessible to everyone. As a commenter posted below, I think we have a critical mass of folks (half the country, basically) who would be willing to go the public route. I really have to think this through, though, bc it would create some interesting incentives to sign people up to one or the other.

by vore 6y ago

mirkules 6y ago

The issue is that of incentive, to put it bluntly. What is the incentive of a medical provider to provide The Best Care Possible, when they know for sure there is no competition? You end up with a system whose only raison d’etre is to continue working as little as possible with no real progress. Yes, not being able to afford it is obviously a bigger issue than being blind for a year. In this case, she had the option to go to a private surgeon and get it taken care of for much more money. As for your last point, in a socialistic type of service, “progress” serves to elect public officials. In a capitalistic service, “progress” serves to make more money. Both of these approaches have their flaws; however, I would argue that progress is faster and service of higher quality when a government is not involved. The gov’t advantage is that it’s “cheaper” and thus more accessible to everyone. As a commenter posted below, I think we have a critical mass of folks (half the country, basically) who would be willing to go the public route. I really have to think this through, though, bc it would create some interesting incentives to sign people up to one or the other.