4 ms·

This is market failure. Insurance works best when risk is spread out over a large pool. In private markets, insurers profit by excluding 'bad risks' which lead

This is market failure. Insurance works best when risk is spread out over a large pool. In private markets, insurers profit by excluding 'bad risks' which leads inevitably to coverage limitations, exclusions, and high costs for those with the greatest need. Universal healthcare systems remove this profit motive and market failure. Everyone contributes, and everyone is covered, regardless of pre-existing conditions. This eliminates adverse selection and allows for better preventative care, ultimately reducing costs and improving overall health outcomes. Markets are great for some use cases, but disastrous for healthcare.

bko 3y ago
> Universal healthcare systems remove this profit motive and market failure. How does universal healthcare system remove profit motive? Are doctors going to stop seeking profit? Maybe if the government knows exactly how much to pay for a service such that there is no profit, but of course information is decentralized and central planning and price controls fails basically every time it has been tried. Plus profit serves a purpose. If I'm a doctor providing a service and there is more demand than I can handle, naturally I raise my prices, signaling to others that there is profit to be made by providing that service. > Everyone contributes, and everyone is covered, regardless of pre-existing conditions Is covered for what and at what price? Presumably you want to reduce overall costs, so total reimbursements will be less. So naturally with a lower price you'll have fewer providers willing to provide that service, which means there will necessarily be a shortage. And now you have to worry about rationing
- panarky 3y ago
  Do you believe that compensating a doctor for her labor and expertise is the same as an insurance corporation declining care in order to give a larger share of your premium payment to its officers and shareholders? Because in a system with universal care, we would still have doctors who are compensated for their labor and expertise, but we wouldn't need the rent-seeking insurance corporation, or its officers, or its shareholders, all to prevent people from receiving care. How much more care could be provided, for the same cost, without all that waste, fraud, abuse and economic rent?
  - 6510 3y ago
    You know what would be funny, if the same fund also paid for [part of] their education. Could do student housing, provide a car, cook food, give them some money each month, build a new university. Train lots of doctors. When they get jobs ask donations. I mean, I pay plenty for health care but I never use it. I'd be much more interested in buying lots of physicians. Pampered empathic physicians. But I do want annual speeches from them. A website full of them.
- jrajav 3y ago
  And why exactly is it that we aren't continually having this debate over skilled workers building and maintaining road infrastructure? Firefighters? Police officers? Postal workers? I truly don't understand how we have many successful and thriving examples of publicly funded services, yet somehow healthcare - which we all equally need, and which is equally a backbone of a healthy society - is somehow unique in needing profit incentives to function. The free-market theory only applies to products which you have a choice to engage with, and which are not essential to life and the basic productivity of all society.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    Have you genuinely never heard a debate about private policing, private toll roads, etc…? Private police patrolling is often far more controversial than all the healthcare debate combined.
  - semiquaver 3y ago
    The real answer in the US is vested interest. The health case sector accounts for 20% of US GDP, double the value in countries with better outcomes and nationalized systems. Fixing the system so it doesn’t cost so much is against the financial interest of an enormous number of people. Sometimes democracy leads to suboptimal outcomes like this.
- 6510 3y ago
  While a lot of it is up for debate, this might be a fun read. https://nl-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Ziekenfonds_(Nederland)?_x_tr_sl=nl&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://nl-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Ziekenfonds_(... We had a lot of.. shall we say.. doctoring with the system in the Netherlands. Towards the end of the page: > Negotiations between health insurance funds and doctors about health insurance fund rates for medical care were generally quite difficult and led to intense conflicts on a number of occasions. Followed by a good example of "debatable": > The lower income from the health insurance practice was compensated by most physicians by higher rates for private patients. Could possibly be true but the opposite is definitely not true. If I get more money for bananas I wont sell apples for less.
wakawaka28 3y ago
Markets are great for health care itself as they create competition. Insurance that pays 100% from the day you join is financially unsound, unless everyone is forced to join. So-called "universal" health care would suffer from the same constraints. If you really want to make health care affordable, increase the supply of everything and cut the red tape. The cost issue is mostly due to a lack of supply rather than an issue with who pays. Of course well-financed entities like governments and insurance companies are capable of distorting prices. But if there were enough clinics, doctors, and supplies, we would all be able to afford basic health care even on a meager income.
tim333 3y ago
Given that healthcare is a complicated problem economically, I'm not sure why countries like the US say don't look at other counties where where the system works better and copy them. See this for example https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109036/satisfaction-health-system-worldwide-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109036/satisfaction-hea... Singapore has low costs and high satisfaction. Maybe copy that one?
- semiquaver 3y ago
  Singapore is a police state that doles out corporal punishment for things like spitting on the sidewalk. Not sure that it should be a model for how to run a society, or that practices there are portable to places where such draconian punishments aren’t routine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore
  - tim333 3y ago
    Singapore isn't that bad really. They don't cane people for spitting, they fine for that kind of thing. I felt much safer there than say Austin TX where I went recently. But anyway Belgium is also on the list and other places. I did mention Singapore to a friend in the UK who works with the NHS and he said it wouldn't work here because Singaporeans are responsible and look after their health while Brits don't. Not sure about that one.

bko 3y ago

> Universal healthcare systems remove this profit motive and market failure. How does universal healthcare system remove profit motive? Are doctors going to stop seeking profit? Maybe if the government knows exactly how much to pay for a service such that there is no profit, but of course information is decentralized and central planning and price controls fails basically every time it has been tried. Plus profit serves a purpose. If I'm a doctor providing a service and there is more demand than I can handle, naturally I raise my prices, signaling to others that there is profit to be made by providing that service. > Everyone contributes, and everyone is covered, regardless of pre-existing conditions Is covered for what and at what price? Presumably you want to reduce overall costs, so total reimbursements will be less. So naturally with a lower price you'll have fewer providers willing to provide that service, which means there will necessarily be a shortage. And now you have to worry about rationing

panarky 3y ago
Do you believe that compensating a doctor for her labor and expertise is the same as an insurance corporation declining care in order to give a larger share of your premium payment to its officers and shareholders? Because in a system with universal care, we would still have doctors who are compensated for their labor and expertise, but we wouldn't need the rent-seeking insurance corporation, or its officers, or its shareholders, all to prevent people from receiving care. How much more care could be provided, for the same cost, without all that waste, fraud, abuse and economic rent?
- 6510 3y ago
  You know what would be funny, if the same fund also paid for [part of] their education. Could do student housing, provide a car, cook food, give them some money each month, build a new university. Train lots of doctors. When they get jobs ask donations. I mean, I pay plenty for health care but I never use it. I'd be much more interested in buying lots of physicians. Pampered empathic physicians. But I do want annual speeches from them. A website full of them.
jrajav 3y ago
And why exactly is it that we aren't continually having this debate over skilled workers building and maintaining road infrastructure? Firefighters? Police officers? Postal workers? I truly don't understand how we have many successful and thriving examples of publicly funded services, yet somehow healthcare - which we all equally need, and which is equally a backbone of a healthy society - is somehow unique in needing profit incentives to function. The free-market theory only applies to products which you have a choice to engage with, and which are not essential to life and the basic productivity of all society.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  Have you genuinely never heard a debate about private policing, private toll roads, etc…? Private police patrolling is often far more controversial than all the healthcare debate combined.
- semiquaver 3y ago
  The real answer in the US is vested interest. The health case sector accounts for 20% of US GDP, double the value in countries with better outcomes and nationalized systems. Fixing the system so it doesn’t cost so much is against the financial interest of an enormous number of people. Sometimes democracy leads to suboptimal outcomes like this.
6510 3y ago
While a lot of it is up for debate, this might be a fun read. https://nl-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Ziekenfonds_(Nederland)?_x_tr_sl=nl&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://nl-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Ziekenfonds_(... We had a lot of.. shall we say.. doctoring with the system in the Netherlands. Towards the end of the page: > Negotiations between health insurance funds and doctors about health insurance fund rates for medical care were generally quite difficult and led to intense conflicts on a number of occasions. Followed by a good example of "debatable": > The lower income from the health insurance practice was compensated by most physicians by higher rates for private patients. Could possibly be true but the opposite is definitely not true. If I get more money for bananas I wont sell apples for less.

wakawaka28 3y ago

Markets are great for health care itself as they create competition. Insurance that pays 100% from the day you join is financially unsound, unless everyone is forced to join. So-called "universal" health care would suffer from the same constraints. If you really want to make health care affordable, increase the supply of everything and cut the red tape. The cost issue is mostly due to a lack of supply rather than an issue with who pays. Of course well-financed entities like governments and insurance companies are capable of distorting prices. But if there were enough clinics, doctors, and supplies, we would all be able to afford basic health care even on a meager income.

tim333 3y ago

Given that healthcare is a complicated problem economically, I'm not sure why countries like the US say don't look at other counties where where the system works better and copy them. See this for example https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109036/satisfaction-health-system-worldwide-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109036/satisfaction-hea... Singapore has low costs and high satisfaction. Maybe copy that one?

semiquaver 3y ago
Singapore is a police state that doles out corporal punishment for things like spitting on the sidewalk. Not sure that it should be a model for how to run a society, or that practices there are portable to places where such draconian punishments aren’t routine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore
- tim333 3y ago
  Singapore isn't that bad really. They don't cane people for spitting, they fine for that kind of thing. I felt much safer there than say Austin TX where I went recently. But anyway Belgium is also on the list and other places. I did mention Singapore to a friend in the UK who works with the NHS and he said it wouldn't work here because Singaporeans are responsible and look after their health while Brits don't. Not sure about that one.