5 ms·

Works well for me and I’m not even wealthy. I get the feeling that the universal healthcare advocates have convinced everyone that things are far worse than the

Works well for me and I’m not even wealthy. I get the feeling that the universal healthcare advocates have convinced everyone that things are far worse than they actually are.

betaby 2y ago
Canada got worst combination of private/public, not-really-a-singly-payer, not that universal care.
- fakedang 2y ago
  I mean all you need is regulating the insurance industry in America. We do a fine job in Switzerland with private insurance, and yet they're some of the biggest insurance players globally. The government HEAVILY regulates health insurance. Also, health insurance isn't tied to employment.
- dghlsakjg 2y ago
  Canadian healthcare isn’t a monolith. It is managed at the provincial level, so it varies between the provinces, I suspect this comment is more of political jab than a cohesive critique of the dozen or so systems at play. Glad for you to clarify your meaning though. That said, my experience in BC is that my tax burdens are much, much lower than my tax burden + insurance cost in the states. I’ve never had issues accessing healthcare in a way that impacted my health (which is not true in the states), although I have had to wait, since it is a triage system based on need, rather than ability to pay.
incangold 2y ago
“Works on my machine, ticket closed”
treyd 2y ago
I just had an antibiotic prescription denied because my insurance company thought I had a refill in 5 days, despite the last time I was prescribed it was as a one-off course, 8 years, and 3 insurance companies ago.
- theGnuMe 2y ago
  express scripts is evil.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
nice sample size of 1
olalonde 2y ago
The problem is that it's not a free market either thanks to medical licensing laws, monopoly control over the accreditation of U.S. medical schools, etc. The supply of doctors was even once artificially limited as a matter of policy due to a fear that there would be a "surplus" of doctors (aka fear that doctor salaries would go down). > The Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee convened by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a report in 1980 warning that there would be a “surplus of 70,000 physicians by 1990” if steps were not taken to bring supply and demand into balance. > This near freeze was enforced by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the American Medical Association (AMA), the two sponsors of the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which is the sole accreditor of allopathic medical schools recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. The decision not to expand the number of slots in U.S. allopathic medical schools remained in place until 2005, when the AAMC and AMA changed their minds from declaring an impending doctor glut to warning of a looming doctor shortage. https://www.heritage.org/education/report/why-dont-us-medical-schools-produce-more-doctors https://www.heritage.org/education/report/why-dont-us-medica...
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  The doctor supply problem is orthogonal, at best, to the insurance problem. You can avoid the insurance problems with the same number of doctors or you can have the exact same insurance problems with 100x the number of doctors.
  - golergka 2y ago
    That's not how markets work. If there was a surplus of doctors, you would have a lot of private practices at low out of pocket prices and no need for insurance whatsoever.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Which would in turn reduce the number of doctors that go into training, which would in turn raise prices back to where insurance is necessary. AFAICT, no health system on the planet, with or without controls on doctor supply, has achieved what you describe. If you have evidence that equilibrium can be found at "no need for insurance whatsoever," I'm interested to see it. It looks to me like equilibrium is nowhere near that.
xtracto 2y ago
This comment reads so American.

Works well for me and I’m not even wealthy. I get the feeling that the universal healthcare advocates have convinced everyone that things are far worse than they actually are.

betaby 2y ago

Canada got worst combination of private/public, not-really-a-singly-payer, not that universal care.

fakedang 2y ago
I mean all you need is regulating the insurance industry in America. We do a fine job in Switzerland with private insurance, and yet they're some of the biggest insurance players globally. The government HEAVILY regulates health insurance. Also, health insurance isn't tied to employment.
dghlsakjg 2y ago
Canadian healthcare isn’t a monolith. It is managed at the provincial level, so it varies between the provinces, I suspect this comment is more of political jab than a cohesive critique of the dozen or so systems at play. Glad for you to clarify your meaning though. That said, my experience in BC is that my tax burdens are much, much lower than my tax burden + insurance cost in the states. I’ve never had issues accessing healthcare in a way that impacted my health (which is not true in the states), although I have had to wait, since it is a triage system based on need, rather than ability to pay.

incangold 2y ago

“Works on my machine, ticket closed”

treyd 2y ago

I just had an antibiotic prescription denied because my insurance company thought I had a refill in 5 days, despite the last time I was prescribed it was as a one-off course, 8 years, and 3 insurance companies ago.

theGnuMe 2y ago
express scripts is evil.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

nice sample size of 1

olalonde 2y ago

The problem is that it's not a free market either thanks to medical licensing laws, monopoly control over the accreditation of U.S. medical schools, etc. The supply of doctors was even once artificially limited as a matter of policy due to a fear that there would be a "surplus" of doctors (aka fear that doctor salaries would go down). > The Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee convened by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a report in 1980 warning that there would be a “surplus of 70,000 physicians by 1990” if steps were not taken to bring supply and demand into balance. > This near freeze was enforced by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the American Medical Association (AMA), the two sponsors of the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which is the sole accreditor of allopathic medical schools recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. The decision not to expand the number of slots in U.S. allopathic medical schools remained in place until 2005, when the AAMC and AMA changed their minds from declaring an impending doctor glut to warning of a looming doctor shortage. https://www.heritage.org/education/report/why-dont-us-medical-schools-produce-more-doctors https://www.heritage.org/education/report/why-dont-us-medica...

llamaimperative 2y ago
The doctor supply problem is orthogonal, at best, to the insurance problem. You can avoid the insurance problems with the same number of doctors or you can have the exact same insurance problems with 100x the number of doctors.
- golergka 2y ago
  That's not how markets work. If there was a surplus of doctors, you would have a lot of private practices at low out of pocket prices and no need for insurance whatsoever.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Which would in turn reduce the number of doctors that go into training, which would in turn raise prices back to where insurance is necessary. AFAICT, no health system on the planet, with or without controls on doctor supply, has achieved what you describe. If you have evidence that equilibrium can be found at "no need for insurance whatsoever," I'm interested to see it. It looks to me like equilibrium is nowhere near that.

xtracto 2y ago

This comment reads so American.