38 ms·

Every single other developed country has 1) socialized medicine in some form or another, be that the UK-style NHS or German-style mandatory insurance with a pub

Every single other developed country has 1) socialized medicine in some form or another, be that the UK-style NHS or German-style mandatory insurance with a public option, 2) better health outcomes than the United States on pretty much every measure and 3) spends less of their income on healthcare, even after taxes are included. I'm not sure what conclusion other than the GPs you can possibly reach.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> socialized medicine in some form or another, be that the UK-style NHS or German-style mandatory insurance with a public option This is not actually true. Some other countries have private insurance and those countries also have lower costs than the US. The US system is unusually mismanaged/corrupt. > better health outcomes than the United States on pretty much every measure This is also not true. The main way universal systems get better numbers on some metrics is that people with no coverage often have extremely poor outcomes, which when averaged in results in poor averages. But the average for people in the US with insurance is better than it is in many systems with universal coverage, which is an important metric because the large majority of people in the US do have insurance and their own outcomes is very much a thing that they care about. You could bring about a large improvement in average outcomes in the US merely by providing an insurance subsidy for lower income people to increase the number of people with coverage. That wouldn't affect the cost much though -- it might lower it a little if it converts some emergency care to preventative, but only for that small percentage of the population that doesn't currently have insurance. The cost issue would still remain in general. > spends less of their income on healthcare, even after taxes are included. This is the legitimate criticism of the US system, but it doesn't tell you what to do about it. For example, Medicare in the US still pays more for equivalent care than many other countries do, so just putting everyone on Medicare without changing anything else wouldn't resolve the high costs in the US. And might even make Medicare look even worse because Medicare is in many ways currently subsidized by the high cost of private insurance. None of that proves that you can't address the high costs without a socialized system -- but making the necessary reforms isn't easy for the same reason that bringing about your own proposal in the US isn't easy. Either way you'd have to overcome the political influence of all the people profiting from the status quo. Doing that is the hard problem.
- lmm 3y ago
  > The main way universal systems get better numbers on some metrics is that people with no coverage often have extremely poor outcomes, which when averaged in results in poor averages. But the average for people in the US with insurance is better than it is in many systems with universal coverage, which is an important metric because the large majority of people in the US do have insurance and their own outcomes is very much a thing that they care about. The large majority of people in the US might lose their insurance at any moment with no recourse, thanks to at-will employment. So they should care about the average outcomes including people without insurance. > You could bring about a large improvement in average outcomes in the US merely by providing an insurance subsidy for lower income people to increase the number of people with coverage. Either this wouldn't work or something has gone terribly wrong with your system, since this hasn't been done.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > The large majority of people in the US might lose their insurance at any moment with no recourse, thanks to at-will employment. So they should care about the average outcomes including people without insurance. Employer-provided health insurance is an absurdity which is plausibly responsible for the highest proportion of US healthcare inefficiency of any one factor and should be destroyed with fire. But it's not because you lose your insurance if you lose your job. In general the people who currently have insurance will continue to have insurance for a variety of overlapping reasons. And you're still not addressing the issue: Something about the US system causes outcomes to be better for people with insurance than they are in most other countries. And that's while the US system is full of greedy bureaucracies fighting each other and wasting like half the money in the process. What would happen if we extracted the good part of that system and made it more efficient? > Either this wouldn't work or something has gone terribly wrong with your system, since this hasn't been done. It costs money. The people it impacts don't have political influence. The main problem with US government programs can be summed up like this: One party says we would be better off with lower taxes and more money in the pockets of individuals and small businesses, but then they don't actually do this and instead give the money to corporations. The other party says we would be better off with higher taxes to provide services to the needy, but then they don't actually do this and instead give the money to corporations. Everything makes sense once you understand this. When the US government passes a prescription drug benefit, it's not because they want to help people who can't afford prescription drugs -- the sensible way to do that would be to lower the underlying cost of prescription drugs. The real motive is because they want to increase the amount of money being transferred to drug companies. The question is how to fix it.
rayiner 3y ago
Several developed countries have mandatory health insurance without a “public option.” E.g. Netherlands, Switzerland, Japan, etc.
- TMWNN 3y ago
  To put another way, the US has more public options (Medicare, Medicaid, VA) than those countries. (Or, say, Australia, which has a public option by default but which really, really, really encourages people to go private.)
- lmm 3y ago
  Japan has a public option, although employees opt for it at the group rather than the individual level. A given company's employees choose their health insurance provider via their union/representatives, and they always have the option of the baseline national provider. (Non-employees/dependents always have public healthcare via their local government)
ybessyehs654 3y ago
You must know absolutely nothing about the NHS if you consider it a success.
- lmm 3y ago
  WTF are you talking about? The NHS has an amazingly high approval rating for such a large organisation, and is among the most cost-efficient healthcare providers in the world.
  - ybessyehs654 3y ago
    [dead]
    - lmm 3y ago
      Even if we take this unpublished study at face value, there's no evidence that the cause is incompetence - the fact that the US has the lowest level of deaths in hospital despite having a very low life expectancy for industrialised countries should be a red flag for that kind of thinking. It's far more plausible that the US has better figures on that metric because it denies many people - especially the poorest and most vulnerable people - access to medical care, so they die outside of hospital instead.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> socialized medicine in some form or another, be that the UK-style NHS or German-style mandatory insurance with a public option This is not actually true. Some other countries have private insurance and those countries also have lower costs than the US. The US system is unusually mismanaged/corrupt. > better health outcomes than the United States on pretty much every measure This is also not true. The main way universal systems get better numbers on some metrics is that people with no coverage often have extremely poor outcomes, which when averaged in results in poor averages. But the average for people in the US with insurance is better than it is in many systems with universal coverage, which is an important metric because the large majority of people in the US do have insurance and their own outcomes is very much a thing that they care about. You could bring about a large improvement in average outcomes in the US merely by providing an insurance subsidy for lower income people to increase the number of people with coverage. That wouldn't affect the cost much though -- it might lower it a little if it converts some emergency care to preventative, but only for that small percentage of the population that doesn't currently have insurance. The cost issue would still remain in general. > spends less of their income on healthcare, even after taxes are included. This is the legitimate criticism of the US system, but it doesn't tell you what to do about it. For example, Medicare in the US still pays more for equivalent care than many other countries do, so just putting everyone on Medicare without changing anything else wouldn't resolve the high costs in the US. And might even make Medicare look even worse because Medicare is in many ways currently subsidized by the high cost of private insurance. None of that proves that you can't address the high costs without a socialized system -- but making the necessary reforms isn't easy for the same reason that bringing about your own proposal in the US isn't easy. Either way you'd have to overcome the political influence of all the people profiting from the status quo. Doing that is the hard problem.

lmm 3y ago
> The main way universal systems get better numbers on some metrics is that people with no coverage often have extremely poor outcomes, which when averaged in results in poor averages. But the average for people in the US with insurance is better than it is in many systems with universal coverage, which is an important metric because the large majority of people in the US do have insurance and their own outcomes is very much a thing that they care about. The large majority of people in the US might lose their insurance at any moment with no recourse, thanks to at-will employment. So they should care about the average outcomes including people without insurance. > You could bring about a large improvement in average outcomes in the US merely by providing an insurance subsidy for lower income people to increase the number of people with coverage. Either this wouldn't work or something has gone terribly wrong with your system, since this hasn't been done.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > The large majority of people in the US might lose their insurance at any moment with no recourse, thanks to at-will employment. So they should care about the average outcomes including people without insurance. Employer-provided health insurance is an absurdity which is plausibly responsible for the highest proportion of US healthcare inefficiency of any one factor and should be destroyed with fire. But it's not because you lose your insurance if you lose your job. In general the people who currently have insurance will continue to have insurance for a variety of overlapping reasons. And you're still not addressing the issue: Something about the US system causes outcomes to be better for people with insurance than they are in most other countries. And that's while the US system is full of greedy bureaucracies fighting each other and wasting like half the money in the process. What would happen if we extracted the good part of that system and made it more efficient? > Either this wouldn't work or something has gone terribly wrong with your system, since this hasn't been done. It costs money. The people it impacts don't have political influence. The main problem with US government programs can be summed up like this: One party says we would be better off with lower taxes and more money in the pockets of individuals and small businesses, but then they don't actually do this and instead give the money to corporations. The other party says we would be better off with higher taxes to provide services to the needy, but then they don't actually do this and instead give the money to corporations. Everything makes sense once you understand this. When the US government passes a prescription drug benefit, it's not because they want to help people who can't afford prescription drugs -- the sensible way to do that would be to lower the underlying cost of prescription drugs. The real motive is because they want to increase the amount of money being transferred to drug companies. The question is how to fix it.

rayiner 3y ago

Several developed countries have mandatory health insurance without a “public option.” E.g. Netherlands, Switzerland, Japan, etc.

TMWNN 3y ago
To put another way, the US has more public options (Medicare, Medicaid, VA) than those countries. (Or, say, Australia, which has a public option by default but which really, really, really encourages people to go private.)
lmm 3y ago
Japan has a public option, although employees opt for it at the group rather than the individual level. A given company's employees choose their health insurance provider via their union/representatives, and they always have the option of the baseline national provider. (Non-employees/dependents always have public healthcare via their local government)

ybessyehs654 3y ago

You must know absolutely nothing about the NHS if you consider it a success.

lmm 3y ago
WTF are you talking about? The NHS has an amazingly high approval rating for such a large organisation, and is among the most cost-efficient healthcare providers in the world.
- ybessyehs654 3y ago
  [dead]
  - lmm 3y ago
    Even if we take this unpublished study at face value, there's no evidence that the cause is incompetence - the fact that the US has the lowest level of deaths in hospital despite having a very low life expectancy for industrialised countries should be a red flag for that kind of thinking. It's far more plausible that the US has better figures on that metric because it denies many people - especially the poorest and most vulnerable people - access to medical care, so they die outside of hospital instead.