[wpietri]

I think there's less reason to fear that. Some of the best parts of government are the science- and data-driven ones, and evidence-based medicine provides a lot of data. Plus, doctors are notoriously independent.

Personally, I'd feel much better about government-run healthcare than for-profit-insurer-run healthcare. At least with the government option, everybody works for me, either directly or indirectly. Plus, a bureaucrat's natural fear works in my favor.

[MBCook]

I really like single payer in theory, but I'm with briandear on this one. There is already enough monkeying with what Medicare should and shouldn't pay for. My fear is the more money is involved, the less science/data/evidence based the decisions will be.

That's why I'm torn on the whole thing. I think for-profit should be able to do it better, but the current system clearly isn't structured in a way that encourages it. I have no idea whether the devil I know is better or not, and it's a big decision.

[redcap]

If (most of) the rest of the developed world can do "socialized" medicine reasonably well, then what's so special about the US that would prevent this? Just the size and scale for fuckups?

There are occasional health system scandals in Australia and the UK, for example, but even with this everyone gets coverage. So why the US needs to drag its heels in this is beyond me.

But if you do think the public service will make a dog's breakfast over the whole thing, I'm all ears.

[MBCook]

My concern is the size of the entrenched interests would prevent things from being setup reasonably. If the government could truly start over, I would have more confidence. Instead I would think we'd get all sorts of pressure that, for example, treatments proven not to beat placebos (or do worse) should still be paid for because people want them, and unless it's so dangerous the FDA bans it.

[nateabele]

Okay, to be clear though, exactly which segment(s) of the developed world are doing socialized medicine and not going bankrupt (or on the verge of going bankrupt) in spectacular fashion?

[wpietri]

If the US adopted any of the systems of other nations, we'd be paying a lot less, so we'd at least be going bankrupt a lot slower. We pay way more than anybody else for outcomes that are basically the same.

Great data and analysis here:

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/what-makes-the-u...

[nateabele]

wpietri: Yes, I read that series quite some time ago. I'm very familiar with the ridiculousness that is the US healthcare system. This, however, is totally irrelevant to my comment, which was regarding other developed countries that are going bankrupt over their entitlement programs.

[wpietri]

It is relevant in exactly the way that I said: we would be going broke more slowly, because we would be spending less on health care.

However, to address your question directly, look at debt to GDP ratios:

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=GOV_DEBT

The US is in the middle of the pack. Countries with more sane health care systems and better levels of debt include Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Finland, Denmark, Canada, Sweden, and Australia. I don't see any reason to believe that they're being driven bankrupt by their health care systems.