6 ms·
Yet people still say this system is better than universal healthcare, go figure
by hanniabu 5y ago
Yet people still say this system is better than universal healthcare, go figure
- gambiting 5y ago"because I can't possibly fathom my hard earned money paying for someone else's treatment" seems to be the most common reason. And you know what? Fine, whatever, in some twisted version of the world I can accept this as an argument. But I wish people would at least realize that by only having private healthcare they are fucking themselves over as shown here. The prices, the copays, the restricted access, the in and out of network treatments......all of that is completely made up to feed the system.
- atlasunshrugged 5y agoI mean on the surface level it kind of makes sense but when you add up all the additional costs from rent seekers like collections agencies, the lack of negotiation from medicare (although I vaguely remember hearing they might do this now) on drug and procedure prices, and hospitals overcharging those who can pay or with insurance to offset the emergency treatment they give to those who can't or won't pay I feel like this argument doesn't hold a ton of water. I mean, you're not paying it directly in taxes, just in a bunch of other ways.
- adamcstephens 5y agoWe should consider private taxes just the same as public taxes.
- hef19898 5y agoTechnically different, but all I care about is how much money is left per months after I paid for everything from taxes to mandatory insurance and social security. If somethings has me with more money left after that, I don't care if it called a tax or something else.
- rawtxapp 5y agoTechnically, our taxes are used for all kinds of stuff we don't directly benefit from and you can argue that the insurance premiums we pay are paying for someone else's treatment. I think another argument is that it'll be less effective (ex: longer wait times, etc) and that people will abuse it, ex: in Canada, I used to see people show up to ER because they were sneezing and I've seen people wait forever to get a doctor, etc, you're much less likely to do that if it costs you something.
- refurb 5y agoThis is the Singapore approach to everything the govt offers. Unless citizens have “skin in the game” over utilization happens. So even if you’re destitute, the govt will ask “well, what can you pay?” and if it’s $20/month for rent, we’ll, your rent is $20. Same with healthcare. Destitute? Ok, the gov’t will cover 99% of the cost, but we need you to pay $20. Private insurance had plans that paid 100% of costs and the govt created a regulation banning it. The end user must pay something. No saying it’s the right approach or not, but it’s an interesting one.
- geoduck14 5y agoThere have been plenty of studies supporting this. Thanks for mentioning it
- hef19898 5y agoGermany tried to solve this with a 10 bucks fee for seeing a doctor per mnth, unless one doctor sent you to another one. It didn't have much of an impact, only increased beuracracy at the doctors practices expense and was abolished after some time.
- shlant 5y agosomething to maybe remind people who are making that statement: The US spends more as a percentage of GDP on healthcare and has the lowest life expectancy of all developed countries[1]. They are already spending their hard earned money on other peoples treatments, they are just getting less bang for their buck. 1. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2019 https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2...
- refurb 5y agoLife expectancy is a terrible measure for health outcomes. Too many confounding factors. Americans drive more than other countries, more road deaths. That drags down life expectancy and has nothing to do with healthcare. Infant mortality is counted differently. The US system will try and save a kid that other system don’t - that’s a death where other systems don’t count it as a life.
- oliwarner 5y agoUS road safety is awful, but the numbers of deaths (15 per 100k drivers) is small in absolute terms, 1%. Other accidents count for another 4%. But physical and mental healthcare plays a major part in the other 95% of deaths.
- shlant 5y agohow much of an impact do you think road fatalities and slightly different infant mortality counts has on an entire countries life expectancy? I would wager it does not come close to accounting for the massive discrepancy between the US and every other developed country.
- expliced 5y agoIsn't insurance also paying for other people's health care?
- gambiting 5y agoI've had this exact argument with someone! Saying that you do know that by paying for private insurance you are paying for other people's treatments, right?? And they said that yeah, but at least they are choosing to pay, instead of being "robbed" through taxes and being forced to pay for other people's treatment.
- cjhockey 5y agoThat's what I find most wild about this argument. Not only is insurance paying for other people's healthcare, you're also paying to enrich a bunch of shareholders.
- LargeWu 5y agoWith single payer healthcare, that money goes to the government, which is bad. In the current US system, that money goes to private companies, which is good. Don't bother questioning this because it's axiomatic. It has ceased to be merely political theory; it's now core to many people's identity. Any threat to that status quo is a personal, existential threat.
- rayiner 5y agoProfits in the healthcare industry account for a single digit percentage of costs. Health insurers made $35 billion in profits in 2019: https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payer/big-name-payers-earned-35-7-billion-2019-here-s-one-common-thread-their-reports https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payer/big-name-payers-earne.... Americans spent $3.8 trillion on healthcare that year. Okay, get rid of insurer profits. Your costs have gone down less than 1%.
- refurb 5y agoWell as someone who has experience universal systems in 2 countries and the US system, if I ever got cancer I’d want to be in the US with private insurance (or hell, Medicare or Medicaid even). Yes, the US system is dysfunctional and very expensive, but one reason why it’s expensive is because they’ll throw everything plus the kitchen sink at you. In the countries I was in, if you get cancer they’ll pay for breakthrough from 3-5 years ago, but that drug approved by the FDA last year? Nope. An example: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/a-tale-of-2-friends-with-breast-cancer-1-has-coverage-for-costly-drug-the-other-forced-to-pay-1.4495123 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/a-tale-of-2-... "Then I found out that this other country — which I thought had a healthcare system that was so superior to the U.S. — doesn't test for the tumour marker that saved my life, and doesn't cover this drug that is responsible for pushing my cancer into remission after traditional chemotherapy failed to do that."
- gambiting 5y agoWell, that's straight up not true. My own dad was treated with the very latest drug by Novartis because he had an extremely rare cancer that didn't have any other treatment yet. 100% paid for by the national health service.
- hef19898 5y agoYep, you can even get experimental stuff if your doctor recommends it.
- atombender 5y agoPeople who come up with that argument don't understand how insurance works. An insurance company pools the premiums paid by their customers; so of course you're also paying for someone else's treatment. If your insurance premium only covered your own expenses, it wouldn't work. It should be added that a healthcare system that relies on insurance companies isn't necessarily a problem, as evidenced by the number of countries (the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, etc.) with highly regarded healthcare systems that rely on private healthcare. Germany has a hybrid public/private system, while the Netherland system relies on mandatory personal health insurance. But these systems work because they are highly regulated and are designed to benefit the individual, with limits on how much providers are allowed to charge, for example.
- hef19898 5y agoThe German system is fun, because while we call one part "public" (rather gesetzlich in German, which describes it much better) and private. Thing is, even the public (gesetzlich) part is run by private companies, they just have to offer a stanrdadized, regulated product at a set and regulated cost, they can offer additional services on top, they can even charge a couple of bucks more. They cannot decline anyone so (exept fringe cases like freelance artists for example, or others with their own profesion-based models) or exclude prexisting condition. Private providers can do that, that's why it is potentially cheaper when being young, but can be quite costsly when people get older. Which is the reason why I always stayed in the public model, less hassle overall.
- hasbot 5y agoAnd vice versa, somebody else is paying for my health care. Thanks, community!
- zahllos 5y ago> "because I can't possibly fathom my hard earned money paying for someone else's treatment" seems to be the most common reason. But it is anyway in fact, since that's how insurance works even privately. There is a model somewhere in between, like the swiss system. Here we pay a deductible amount of our own healthcare per year, which can be one of several set amounts. After that insurance pays 90% up to some set ceiling, then everything. Costs including monthly premiums are regulated for essential treatment, and people who really can't pay can ask the government for assistance. The differentiator for health insurance is in add on packages. You want a private hotel room if you ever need to stay? Extra. You want something not covered by the basic insurance (most things you might reasonably need are covered)? Extra. This has the advantage of making the cost of unnecessary healthcare visible to people, which discourages unnecessary use a bit, while making sure that if something really does go wrong you will be treated and you don't need to worry about going bankrupt. It isn't tied to employers either. It isn't a perfect system but my point is that there is in fact a reasonable middle ground compromise if 'everything is free' isn't acceptable. It is also quite possible to make money even with a system that charges for basic healthcare. I agree that the US system is probably unchangeable - too many entrenched interests. It seems a shame though. We need some level of safety net as a society.
- consumer451 5y agoIn my personal experience, American privatized healthcare has absolutely skewered libertarian dogma. In a public health system waste is considered bad, and we would work to lower it. In the private system waste is called shareholder value, and we work to increase it. edit: I phrased this poorly, but certainly stand by my point. If anyone would care to discuss this or educate me, I am always open to change my mind.
- mrosett 5y agoIf you think the most regulated sector of the economy with all sorts of rent-seeking and barriers to entry is an indictment of libertarianism, you’re more than a bit off the mark.
- clcaev 5y agoFree market principles require an educated buyer in a market with competitive service providers. When you're admitted to an emergency room, there is no shopping around even if you are educated in healthcare enough to know what your options are...
- consumer451 5y ago> all sorts of rent-seeking and barriers to entry is an indictment of libertarianism... OK, so if I understand your point, US healthcare is not free-market enough and even more deregulation is the cure. In that scenario even more hungry profit centers are allowed to flourish between the patient and their doctor. But, that is even more "waste" from a patient money -> healthcare provided point of view. What has become apparent to me is that some aspects of civilization are not compatible with privatization. Oof. This was a very bitter pill for me to swallow as my background is having escaped Soviet controlled Europe when I was a child. It has taken a lot of time for me to realize that the ideal solutions for our species may not be at the opposite extreme of ideology. The big realization may have been that solutions in reality are often closer to a tensor than any one-dimensional concept or pure ideology. * Note: by "ideal solutions for our species," I mean optimizing for the survival of the species, and growth of our technological civilization.
- LudwigNagasena 5y agoAre there only two choices?
- dang 5y agoWe detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27800602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27800602.