Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by MatrixAlgebra 2912 days ago
This article fails to understand the true costs of European economic arrangements.

Let's consider healthcare. Often touted as an example of how much "better" Europe (and Canada, etc) is than the US, consider:

1. Wait times are often much greater in countries with socialized medicine and this has serious implications: in Canada between 1993 and 2009, around 40,000 people died as a result of increased wait times due to socialized medicine. [1]

2. The US has "significantly lower rates of 30-day-stroke-induced mortality than every other OECD country aside from Japan and Korea". [1]

3. Cancer survival rates in the US are equivalent to or higher than in similarly developed nations. [1]

Furthermore, let's consider the places where innovation in medicine is most robust.

European nations do not get cheaper drugs for free. That is to say, there is a real cost for the price ceilings and controls imposed on the European healthcare sector in the form of reduced ability for European forms to produce new drugs and therapies which has real implications for future mortality rates.

The US, by contrast, has become an engine of growth for the healthcare sector owing to its free(r) market.

Among the US to France, Germany, Switzerland, Japan and the UK, the US share of drug discovery (based on inventing company headquarter location) has increased from 31% from 1971-1980 to 57% from 2001-2010. This clear upward trend will likely continue for US innovation as European nations grapple with rising healthcare costs by continuing to clamp down on the free market. [2]

If the US were to adopt a European approach, it's likely that drug discovery and innovation would collapse and as a result many millions of people in the future who would have been saved by novel therapies would instead have to suffer death at the hands of the socialistic stranglehold on innovation.

This is not to say the US is perfect or that it is always better than Europe, but it is to say that discussions of the merits of US vs European healthcare often fail to capture nuanced facts and realities that cannot be ignored. European healthcare may be more available to European citizens, but it is in general of lower quality (given wait times) than comparable US healthcare. And the US, through its free market approach, has become the global engine of healthcare innovation which directly benefits other nations who have shunned free market principles in healthcare.

[1]: https://www.google.com/amp/s/fee.org/articles/if-american-he...

[2]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/05/16/sure-w...

2 comments

I would agree that American policies have increased the size of our healthcare sector, but is this really something that can be attributed to free market decisions? How much more growth can we handle when it is already 18% of our GDP ($3.4 trillion)? There is probably an argument to be made that healthcare in the USA is better than a place like Canada, but I really don't think it is 2 times better (~$10,000 vs ~$5,000 per capita).
European healthcare is lower quality than not having healthcare, which a fairly large percentage of Americans do not? Any healthcare is better than no healthcare and no amount of waiting is going to flip that equation.
Not having health insurance is different from not being able to access healthcare. Everyone in the US is entitled to healthcare regardless of their ability to pay. I don't really know if that's the best policy or not, but it simply isn't true that people don't have access to healthcare.