How does "Socialized Healthcare" Compare to "Privatized Healthcare"?

[Raidenx]

Does medical bankruptcy mean anything to you?

Yeah, and most people don't go bankrupt either

Stop using scare tactics

[Tradewind]

Yeah, and most people don't go bankrupt either

Stop using scare tactics

Isn't that exactly what the opponents of socialized medicine use? Scare tactics.

[Rendia]

then you don't have a true socialized medicine you have some elements of privatized medicine

If I am not mistaken, all socialized medicine practicing areas have some elements of privatized medicine. However they are completely optional and at additional expense.

[Dezerte]

then you don't have a true socialized medicine you have some elements of privatized medicine

It's not like the government can force me to use their services.

[Wildtree]

Better outcomes? Does this mean better coverage or quality? There's a distinction. US quality is top notch and highly specialized.

So is the one in Europe. In fact of the matter, the top notch specialists are spread out over the globe. Some stuff is better done here, some stuff is better done elsewhere.
Remember the first heart transplant? Prof Dr Bernard, South Africa.. Who would guess SA would have been the leading country for heart surgery?

Plus it's rather secondary where the top notch specialist sits.... As long as the treatment is above average it's sufficient.

I am rather treated decently, and my health care system allows me to stay in the hospital for an ample time after the surgery, instead of getting top notch surgery but I get kicked out after 2 days. And top notch doesn't apply to the average American either. The insurance companies won't cover it. They pay for the average treatment.

[Raidenx]

I think the last census figure (pre Obama Care) had 13.8% of Americans uninsured. Which isn't "most" but is in my opinion too high. What's more, insurance often does not cover preventative care. Which is just silly in since that would seem to cost the insurance companies less then only treating emergencies.

That include Medicare and Medicaid?

I have no problem with dependants who are physically or mentally incapable of providing for themselves getting state healthcare. Seems like a fair concession imo

[Kujako]

That chart is shaky as hell and is outdated. It also doesn't make much sense.

I trust OECD numbers more since they are more precise and you can look at every aspect

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/

OECD is an index of how "important" things are, not how good they are. A high importance on health care could mean that current conditions are so bad that citizens care deeply about it improving.

[Raidenx]

Isn't that exactly what the opponents of socialized medicine use? Scare tactics.

Yes, but I'm not using them. It's not appropriate.

[Kujako]

I have no problem with dependants who are physically or mentally incapable of providing for themselves getting state healthcare.

Like members of Congress? <rimshot>

[Daelak]

Yeah, and most people don't go bankrupt either

Stop using scare tactics

So, if I am understanding you correctly, our healthcare system is sufficient for our population? Are you under the impression that healthcare costs will drop (something that hasn't happened since the baby boomers started to reach retirement age).

[Wildtree]

That chart is shaky as hell and is outdated. It also doesn't make much sense.

I trust OECD numbers more since they are more precise and you can look at every aspect

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/

The charts are outdated. But it boils down to How to use Wikipedia.
It's WHO data... Not hard to get the relevant data for 2012 too..
http://www.who.int/gho/publications/...stics/2012/en/

[Wikiy]

Prescription here is 5-10$ and everything else (including all non-cosmetic surgery, transplants and things like lasex) is free.

[Dezerte]

That chart is shaky as hell and is outdated. It also doesn't make much sense.

I trust OECD numbers more since they are more precise and you can look at every aspect

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/

I see countries with free health-care on the same level on the US there, so at best, you can argue that medical aid isn't any worse in the US.

[Tradewind]

OECD is an index of how "important" things are, not how good they are. A high importance on health care could mean that current conditions are so bad that citizens care deeply about it improving.

Not to mention that countries with socialized healthcare still rank higher than the US on the OECD charts.

Switzerland 9.4
Canada 9.0
US 8.4

Can't be arsed to navigate that website to get every score, but you can see the scale here:

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/health/

[Raidenx]

So, if I am understanding you correctly, our healthcare system is sufficient for our population? Are you under the impression that healthcare costs will drop (something that hasn't happened since the baby boomers started to reach retirement age).

No. We need handle rising Medicare costs, put heavy restrictions on lobbying, and let the market work by ripping the leech that is the insurance industry off of our government. I'm sort of dispassionate about socialized healthcare since there are bigger things to cut or reform than benefits at the moment (Medicare being the exception), and costs aren't that high assuming its implemented properly. I just don't like the macabre mess we have now where our government enables the big pharma an insurance companies to dominate everything, and would prefer a clean market based system where prices stay low and rise proportionally with income levels

---------- Post added 2013-04-22 at 04:34 PM ----------

I see countries with free health-care on the same level on the US there, so at best, you can argue that medical aid isn't any worse in the US.

It's the system overall, not quality in particular.

[Tradewind]

No. We need handle rising Medicare costs, put heavy restrictions on lobbying, and let the market work by ripping the leech that is the insurance industry off of our government. I'm sort of dispassionate about socialized healthcare since there are bigger things to cut or reform than benefits at the moment (Medicare being the exception), and costs aren't that high assuming its implemented properly. I just don't like the macabre mess we have now where our government enables the big pharma an insurance companies to dominate everything, and would prefer a clean market based system where prices stay low and rise proportionally with income levels

I get what you're saying, but I just don't think it's going to be possible. It would mean crippling the insurance companies, they've fucked it up so much that the costs per person are completely ridiculous. I just, seriously doubt, they'll ever cut the costs to the patient because it will mean everything else has to cut their costs/salary to match up...drug companies, equipment manufacturers, doctors, nurses, staff etc.

Kicking the lobbyists out and saying to Aetna/Kaiser/Blue Cross etc. "hey, behave now" isn't going to finally fix the problem...

[Jackmoves]

then you don't have a true socialized medicine you have some elements of privatized medicine

We do, but nothing stops a doctor from setting up his own clinic. There plenty of profitable clinics where they practise elective surgery. Same for dentists etc. Emergency care is different though. So even our prime minister would be taken to a State run hospital if he for example would be shot by a madman ;P

We got a mixed market economy mate, the only thing that is not at least partially privatized is the booze market. If you want something stronger then 3,5% you need to go to a System Bolaget store or a bar/resturant/club.

[Masark]

let the market work

I highly doubt that a functional market in medicine is even possible. By the inherent nature of medicine, you're lacking so many of the criteria* of a "perfect market", that I really doubt you'll get any kind of functional result

*High entry barriers (medical training is lengthy and not cheap), high information asymmetry (as you're paying them for their information), heavily non-homogenous products, and high economies of scale.

[Elegiac]

If I am not mistaken, all socialized medicine practicing areas have some elements of privatized medicine. However they are completely optional and at additional expense.

The most successful "socialized healthcare" systems actually use significant private elements in order to lower overall costs, yes.

[Tradewind]

The most successful "socialized healthcare" systems actually use significant private elements in order to lower overall costs, yes.

They're private practices but paid by government insurance funds. Exception is usually hospitals. But GP care is "private" in that they are owned and operated by the individual, but funded by the government.