4 ms·

North Koreans think their country is the best too. The US health system sucks. The US spends more public money on health, let alone private money, and still ha

by wisty 15y ago

North Koreans think their country is the best too. The US health system sucks. The US spends more public money on health, let alone private money, and still has a crappy system. The reality is, medicine is something that any idiot can manage. Get a doctor and some nurses, put them in a clean building, and give them a few million to buy machines and stocks. Even the government can do it, and the government does it at a lower price, because they aren't looking to rip off desperate people. There's huge barriers to entry (regulatory issues, deals with insurers, no way to boot strap unless you are a doctor), but it's not all rocket science. No-one competes on value (i.e. quality of life over price) - not many people shop to find the cheapest hospital (it's too hard and confusing), they just go on vague stuff like how nice the lobby looks. You won't lose much if the government replaces pretty private lobbys with Stalinist admissions rooms, and tells doctors to look after the patients rather than con them into expensive, unnecessary, and sometimes risky procedures. Unless you believe that competition lowers price to the marginal cost of supply (which is pure fantasy cooked up by economists, and is completely at odds with how business actually run), or you think that the management of hospitals needs innovative techniques, then there's no reason not to have public health.

paulhauggis 15y ago
"Get a doctor and some nurses, put them in a clean building, and give them a few million to buy machines and stocks. Even the government can do it, and the government does it at a lower price, because they aren't looking to rip off desperate people." They may not be looking to "rip off desperate people", but they sure don't know how to efficiently spend money (example: every single government-run system in the history of humanity). If the government ran anything like an efficient business, I might agree to more government-run services. The problem is that over time, almost all end up hemorrhaging money and I can't trust my life to a system like this. "You won't lose much if the government replaces pretty private lobbys with Stalinist admissions rooms, and tells doctors to look after the patients rather than con them into expensive, unnecessary, and sometimes risky procedures." Except freedom of choice. Once you have a government system in place, nearly all private care will be put out of business because the government is allowed to play by their own rules. Look at the UK: private care is so expensive, unless you are in the top 1%, you can't afford it. Nobody likes monopolies, yet those same people are fine with the government running one. The same exact rules apply. A monopoly on health care means the government doesn't have to compete, innovate, or have any incentive to give us better care. "or you think that the management of hospitals needs innovative techniques, then there's no reason not to have public health." Nobody that is pro-universal health will ever discuss the problems with it. I mean nobody. I can't believe a system is perfect. No system is. If we can't have intelligent discussions about the pros and cons of a system, I won't ever support it.
- arethuza 15y ago
  The UK NHS is usually regarded as being extremely efficient, but not the most effective health system e.g.: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-efficient-health-services http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most... Private health care in the UK really isn't that expensive - I have it for our accident prone family of 3 and I don't think it's more than about £400 a month, with pretty minimal excess levels (about £100 per treatment). Note that I get this as part of my pay from my employer - which is fairly common. Note that for anything like an emergency or a child birth you will want to be in an NHS hospital - for a variety of reasons...
  - paulhauggis 15y ago
    That's actually pretty affordable. Thanks for the link. I will check it out.
- ErrantX 15y ago
  In the UK, private medical insurance comes in a broader range of costs - and generally costs less than insurance in the US.
- AlisdairO 15y ago
  My view of the main con of universal healthcare systems is that it's harder to get care for chronic conditions that are unpleasant/painful but not ultimately dangerous. I think it's hard to dispute that the US offers substantially better care for these issues if you have the money. The fact is, though, that I believe this is the case largely because of how doctors are allocated. Doctors are, of course, a limited resource - there's simply an insufficient number of people with the requisite intelligence, mindset and dedication necessary to do the job. In universal healthcare systems, doctors are allocated largely by need first, whereas in the US the system is biased substantially by ability to pay. Personally I find that dubiously moral, but I think perhaps it fits well with the US mindset - it's been my experience that the poor are judged quite harshly there, and not necessarily seen as deserving of good care. (a quite sidenote here - I often see people essentially saying 'if they want healthcare they should be more successful'. I don't really understand this point of view, because since healthcare is largely a limited resource, as people earn more money the cost of healthcare will go up with their ability to pay. No matter how hard everyone tries, there will always be a bottom percentage who get poor care) > Nobody likes monopolies, yet those same people are fine with the government running one. The same exact rules apply. A monopoly on health care means the government doesn't have to compete, innovate, or have any incentive to give us better care. The same rules do not apply if you have a functioning government - in principle if a government produces poor results with respect to public services, you kick them out and vote in a replacement, something you can't do (without monopoly regulation) to a private company. This happened when the Tory government got junked in favour of Labour in the 90s. Labour, for all their (many) other faults, saved the NHS and helped turned it into the highly efficient system we have today. Is it perfect? No, but it's much better than most alternatives. > They may not be looking to "rip off desperate people", but they sure don't know how to efficiently spend money (example: every single government-run system in the history of humanity) I see this meme spread a lot, yet the UK's publicly-run system indisputably achieves better overall results for the amount of money put in than the US's private one.
chunkyslink 15y ago
> North Koreans think their country is the best too. I often see many similarities between the USA and North Korea too.
- wisty 15y ago
  I hope that's sarcastic ... I was just using NK as an extreme example.
  - chunkyslink 15y ago
    Nope, Nothing sarcastic about that at all.

by wisty 15y ago

paulhauggis 15y ago

"Get a doctor and some nurses, put them in a clean building, and give them a few million to buy machines and stocks. Even the government can do it, and the government does it at a lower price, because they aren't looking to rip off desperate people." They may not be looking to "rip off desperate people", but they sure don't know how to efficiently spend money (example: every single government-run system in the history of humanity). If the government ran anything like an efficient business, I might agree to more government-run services. The problem is that over time, almost all end up hemorrhaging money and I can't trust my life to a system like this. "You won't lose much if the government replaces pretty private lobbys with Stalinist admissions rooms, and tells doctors to look after the patients rather than con them into expensive, unnecessary, and sometimes risky procedures." Except freedom of choice. Once you have a government system in place, nearly all private care will be put out of business because the government is allowed to play by their own rules. Look at the UK: private care is so expensive, unless you are in the top 1%, you can't afford it. Nobody likes monopolies, yet those same people are fine with the government running one. The same exact rules apply. A monopoly on health care means the government doesn't have to compete, innovate, or have any incentive to give us better care. "or you think that the management of hospitals needs innovative techniques, then there's no reason not to have public health." Nobody that is pro-universal health will ever discuss the problems with it. I mean nobody. I can't believe a system is perfect. No system is. If we can't have intelligent discussions about the pros and cons of a system, I won't ever support it.

arethuza 15y ago
The UK NHS is usually regarded as being extremely efficient, but not the most effective health system e.g.: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-efficient-health-services http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most... Private health care in the UK really isn't that expensive - I have it for our accident prone family of 3 and I don't think it's more than about £400 a month, with pretty minimal excess levels (about £100 per treatment). Note that I get this as part of my pay from my employer - which is fairly common. Note that for anything like an emergency or a child birth you will want to be in an NHS hospital - for a variety of reasons...
- paulhauggis 15y ago
  That's actually pretty affordable. Thanks for the link. I will check it out.
ErrantX 15y ago
In the UK, private medical insurance comes in a broader range of costs - and generally costs less than insurance in the US.
AlisdairO 15y ago
My view of the main con of universal healthcare systems is that it's harder to get care for chronic conditions that are unpleasant/painful but not ultimately dangerous. I think it's hard to dispute that the US offers substantially better care for these issues if you have the money. The fact is, though, that I believe this is the case largely because of how doctors are allocated. Doctors are, of course, a limited resource - there's simply an insufficient number of people with the requisite intelligence, mindset and dedication necessary to do the job. In universal healthcare systems, doctors are allocated largely by need first, whereas in the US the system is biased substantially by ability to pay. Personally I find that dubiously moral, but I think perhaps it fits well with the US mindset - it's been my experience that the poor are judged quite harshly there, and not necessarily seen as deserving of good care. (a quite sidenote here - I often see people essentially saying 'if they want healthcare they should be more successful'. I don't really understand this point of view, because since healthcare is largely a limited resource, as people earn more money the cost of healthcare will go up with their ability to pay. No matter how hard everyone tries, there will always be a bottom percentage who get poor care) > Nobody likes monopolies, yet those same people are fine with the government running one. The same exact rules apply. A monopoly on health care means the government doesn't have to compete, innovate, or have any incentive to give us better care. The same rules do not apply if you have a functioning government - in principle if a government produces poor results with respect to public services, you kick them out and vote in a replacement, something you can't do (without monopoly regulation) to a private company. This happened when the Tory government got junked in favour of Labour in the 90s. Labour, for all their (many) other faults, saved the NHS and helped turned it into the highly efficient system we have today. Is it perfect? No, but it's much better than most alternatives. > They may not be looking to "rip off desperate people", but they sure don't know how to efficiently spend money (example: every single government-run system in the history of humanity) I see this meme spread a lot, yet the UK's publicly-run system indisputably achieves better overall results for the amount of money put in than the US's private one.

chunkyslink 15y ago

> North Koreans think their country is the best too. I often see many similarities between the USA and North Korea too.

wisty 15y ago
I hope that's sarcastic ... I was just using NK as an extreme example.
- chunkyslink 15y ago
  Nope, Nothing sarcastic about that at all.