Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jsbaby608 2599 days ago
government-run care doesn't work well for major surgery. As I said earlier, decisions are made by commitee and many people don't get the care they need.

Health insurance, like the student financial aid situation in the US, has created a situation where the true costs are inflated because the hospitals know that the average person isn't footing the bill, the billion dollar insurance company is. It's why you see $80 bills for asparin.

Your rainbows and flowers ideas about healthcare sound great in theory, but the reality is that the middleman is creating these balooning and insustainable costs. Government-run care just replaces this middleman with the government and doesn't do anything to reduce the cost or make the care better for anyone.

The US has the best quality care in the world. It's why everyone with the means comes over to the US to get treated for major illnesses. Upending the systen to make it like all of the other, worse, systems in the world isn't thr answer.

1 comments

This is simply untrue. Government run health care reduces costs (by eliminating the rent-seeking middlemen in the process and by controlling costs through direct fiat if necessary) and improves outcomes. Government run health care also incentivizes the government to tax behaviors and products that have negative long-term health consequences so that it can control the eventual costs that it will end up paying.

US health care is not the best in the world and has not been for a very long time. Some people may travel to the US to see a specialist, but 10x as many Americans travel to other countries to get care that they are unable to get in the US (usually due to cost.) The US usually ends up dead last in health care among the more industrialized nations and more recently was ranked 37th in the world by the WHO. Please find me a single ranking that puts US health care at the top of the list, I could use the laugh.

The WHO list is heavily biased toward quantity of care (IE: socialized) and not quality. So, it's not really a good judge of the best quality.

If 10x Americans are getting surgery overseas because it's cheaper, this doesn't mean it's better. Our disussion is about the best quality, not on price.

Show me the studies where government-run care saves money, yet has the exact same quality as US care.

Judging outcomes and life expectancy is a red herring, because different populations have different diets, lifestyles, and genetics, which definitely leads to different outcomes.

If are sacrificing quality for cheaper care...no thanks.

I also see my mention of Surgery by committee is ignored in your comments. I'm assuming this means you know this is true. Why would I want this?