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

[Maximus Testiculos]

In Turkey

Prescriptions: Only up to something like %25 of the original price of the medicine.

Lab Work (blood tests, x-rays, etc.) Free

Hospital stays: Free

ER visits: Free

I am going to have a brain mr in a few days and they did not ask any money from me. They just put you in a list.

[Zhangfei]

that still doesnt compare to my ability to make myself flail about and convulse like magikarp out of water.

Once again, nemesis, you have defeated me. But I will be back once we get past June, July or so, preferably autumn or winter! BWAHAHAHAHHAHA

[Masark]

No one is arguing against anyone's right to access medical care. I'm asking whether or not it's right to foist that bill on someone else. Specifically someone who didn't sign up to finance your poor lifestyle choices in many cases.

"I'm not denying treatment. I'm denying payment for treatment."

Just where did you find a knife sharp enough to slice a point that finely?

[Mandible]

In my bracket I'd still have much more disposable income after those expenses. For each their own I guess

Maybe because most of us here don't see it as a matter of the individual, but a matter of all the people in the country

[Grim Retailer]

I am a European, and I work in health care. And I don't know what a "fully socialized healthcare system" is. Do you mean Beveridge model health care? National Insurance systems?

"Socialized health care" is a term you normally hear from Americans, not anyone who lives in a UHC country. Often followed by paranoid delusions about the government taking over, or not being able to chose your own doctor.

All healthcare systems in the developed world includes a private component. Some nations run UHC entirely on private provision. Everyone gets to chose their own doctor.

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

Both. Coverage up towards 100 %. And out of 40-odd developed countries, the US scores in the low 30s on nearly any large public health measure.

There is some critisicim about the results from certain American right wing sources. Altought the arguement that the results of the rather low quality in the case of the US are biased as unusually high homicide and car accident rates are not taken into consideration. Also that shorter life expectancy caused by obesity is not adjusted to the number either.

Work the numbers. If the US deficit in lifespan was cause by gun deaths and car accidents the US would have to lose more 18-year olds to those two causes, every year, than US livesnlost in combat through the whole of WW2.

If obesity was the cause, you'd expect the number two obesity country to have high health care costs as well. And number three. No such relationship exists.

[Mihalik]

Work the numbers. If the US deficit in lifespan was cause by gun deaths and car accidents the US would have to lose more 18-year olds to those two causes, every year, than US livesnlost in combat through the whole of WW2.

If obesity was the cause, you'd expect the number two obesity country to have high health care costs as well. And number three. No such relationship exists.

I'm not sure I get what you are saying with the first point. I believe the gun deaths and car accidents argument is silly. If the effect of gun deaths and car accidents would be so much higher on the US results, then indeed we would be talking about way to much of a disparity. In essence it would say US drivers are 2 or 3 times more accident prone then any other first world country and that Gun related murders are on 3rd world country levels. While both could be somewhat higher then the median of other developed nations, it's not to point that it would knock the US down to the bottom of the list amongst developed nations.

The other point of obesity, very few countries are near US levels and those that are, manage to keep their healthcare costs manageable through their state run systems.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Privatized health care: Hospitals and insurance companies are run privately and for profit. This means a lot of excessive money is funneled into the hands of executives and directors. This creates a premium on health care and thus a premium on insurance.

Public health care: (Assuming the same price is paid in taxes for public health care that you pay for your private insurance) rather than a premium paid for execs and directors, that money instead is put towards treating more patients. More patients treated in turn creates more jobs for medical professionals. More healthy people and more jobs for medical professionals means a healthier economy.

What's that you say, that makes too much sense? Why yes, yes it does.

The other point of obesity, very few countries are near US levels and those that are, manage to keep their healthcare costs manageable through their state run systems.

Pretty much, a single payer keeps prices down due to negotiation of bulk purchases, ownership of facilities and equipment, and being not-for-profit. But again, that makes way too much sense.

[Voidism]

For medicine, we pay at most 275 usd per year (prescription meds only). No matter how much or what kind of (prescript.) medicine. I personally 'consume' meds for 2200 usd per year, but I only pay 275 (23 usd per month). Visit to a physician or other health care prof is free until you're 25 or so. After that it's like 30 usd per visit, up to a limit which I think it about the same as for meds.

[anyaka21]

Not if the public exchanges actually get setup. But Republican governors are so far refusing and the fed' is slow to step in and do it for them.

a lot of the exchanges have been set up and the end result, people are paying higher premiums across the board for the same coverage. Add that, with the 30 hour threshold for business' most of the hourly employees in the USA are going to be out of health care because business' are cutting hours to under 30 so they don't have to provide, and even if they say they aren't going to publicly, like the Darden company, they just won't hire anyone on a full time basis and weed out the full timers through attrition. Thus burdening the taxpayer with even higher premiums because they don't have their employer working with them on it, and they work less, thus causing all of that to even further increase the burden on the taxpayer.

[Annapolis]

Both. Coverage up towards 100 %. And out of 40-odd developed countries, the US scores in the low 30s on nearly any large public health measure.


If obesity was the cause, you'd expect the number two obesity country to have high health care costs as well. And number three. No such relationship exists.

A country with poor distribution of healthcare is doing poorly when measured for how it distributes healthcare?

Obesity definitely has an influence. We are the most obese country in the world and people with severe obesity die 8-10 years earlier than the average person: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...countries.html. Obesity isn't the only reason the life expectancy in the United States is lower than other countries with equal wealth, but ignoring it is nonsensical.

[Grummgug]

Us healthcare is not truly privatized. You should start by rejecting the premise that it is privatized.

Medicare medicaid and health insurance are forms of socializing medicine. These things create tremendous upward pressure on prices.

In a privatized system, prices fall as competition increases.

The cell phone industry is privatized. cell phone prices continue to collapse as time passes because competition is fierce. If we treated the cell phone industry like the us treats health care, and create a federal subsidy to "guarantee" everyone a cell phone, the equivalent of medicare, it would create massive upward pressure on cell phone prices and they would start becoming increasingly expensive.

Health care costs only began to explode when we created medicare and medicaid.

Sometimes economics can be counterintuitive and this is one example. People believe giving "free" x to the poor makes it more accessible. It actually makes it less accessible over time because if money is no object, prices skyrocket. That is why when we dont give a crap about if the poor has cellphones, prices crater and soon everyone can have a cell phone.... While when we care deeply about giving everyone health care, prices rise until it becones impossible for people to have health care.

To help others economically, you just need to let go...

[anyaka21]

Us healthcare is not truly privatized. You should start by rejecting the premise that it is privatized.

Medicare medicaid and health insurance are forms of socializing medicine. These things create tremendous upward pressure on prices.

In a privatized system, prices fall as competition increases.

The cell phone industry is privatized. cell phone prices continue to collapse as time passes because competition is fierce. If we treated the cell phone industry like the us treats health care, and create a federal subsidy to "guarantee" everyone a cell phone, the equivalent of medicare, it would create massive upward pressure on cell phone prices and they would start becoming increasingly expensive.

Health care costs only began to explode when we created medicare and medicaid.

Sometimes economics can be counterintuitive and this is one example. People believe giving "free" x to the poor makes it more accessible. It actually makes it less accessible over time because if money is no object, prices skyrocket. That is why when we dont give a crap about if the poor has cellphones, prices crater and soon everyone can have a cell phone.... While when we care deeply about giving everyone health care, prices rise until it becones impossible for people to have health care.

To help others economically, you just need to let go...

That's actually a very interesting point. The would hold true in the computer and electronics industry. Products get better and prices drop.

That said, if there was no insurance, no insurance companies, I wonder what it would cost for health care?

Seems to me that the USA should either go the full no insurance route and as thus force hospitals and health care to fight over pricing or go the full UHC route. This kind of half and half way we have is only hurting the healthcare industry and as a result the patients.

[Talzar]

Us healthcare is not truly privatized. You should start by rejecting the premise that it is privatized.

Medicare medicaid and health insurance are forms of socializing medicine. These things create tremendous upward pressure on prices.

In a privatized system, prices fall as competition increases.

The cell phone industry is privatized. cell phone prices continue to collapse as time passes because competition is fierce. If we treated the cell phone industry like the us treats health care, and create a federal subsidy to "guarantee" everyone a cell phone, the equivalent of medicare, it would create massive upward pressure on cell phone prices and they would start becoming increasingly expensive.

Health care costs only began to explode when we created medicare and medicaid.

Sometimes economics can be counterintuitive and this is one example. People believe giving "free" x to the poor makes it more accessible. It actually makes it less accessible over time because if money is no object, prices skyrocket. That is why when we dont give a crap about if the poor has cellphones, prices crater and soon everyone can have a cell phone.... While when we care deeply about giving everyone health care, prices rise until it becones impossible for people to have health care.

To help others economically, you just need to let go...

The elderly and poor would just get quacks. Like they did before those programs.

[Redblade]

That said, if there was no insurance, no insurance companies, I wonder what it would cost for health care?

I don't think you would want to find out. This would lead to the issue of those pesky poor people laying dead here and there as well...

[This name sucks]

I love Canada's healthcare system.
Even if it did result in me having to wait for 18 months to have a minor surgery to fix a common birth defect in my ear.
Although I did have a shitty reaction to the codeine they gave me as a painkiller afterwards but that wasn't their fault.

Other than that I haven't ever really needed to use my almost free healthcare but I'm still 100% ok with paying my share for other people.

[Deleted]

Apparently I spent $8k on top of my insurance to resolve my serious allergy issues (which didn't work) because I chose to get allergies.

Damn, and I thought I was stupid choosing to get pneumonia as a child. God knows how much that would have cost.


side point, how does it work in the US with regards to kids? Do they need insurance or are they covered by parents? And how does a single parent afford insurance if they have no job? Just wondering how it would have been if I was born in the US, as my my family was very poor and unemployed at the time.

[Talzar]

That's actually a very interesting point. The would hold true in the computer and electronics industry. Products get better and prices drop.

That said, if there was no insurance, no insurance companies, I wonder what it would cost for health care?

Seems to me that the USA should either go the full no insurance route and as thus force hospitals and health care to fight over pricing or go the full UHC route. This kind of half and half way we have is only hurting the healthcare industry and as a result the patients.

I doubt that prices would come down very much where they mattered. Insurance helps a lot throughout your lifespan but it's really there so one issue doesn't put you in financial ruin. A hard working person can get cancer and whatever price treatment may or may not drop to will still be out of the reach of tens of millions, if not more.

Medicare, medicaid, and insurances aren't the problem. The medical culture in our country needs to change with or without UHC. Extra zeros get thrown on every price tag just because they can. Hospitals don't answer to shareholders. They need to get out of the Fortune 500 mindset.

[anyaka21]

I doubt that prices would come down very much where they mattered. Insurance helps a lot throughout your lifespan but it's really there so one issue doesn't put you in financial ruin. A hard working person can get cancer and whatever price treatment may or may not drop to will still be out of the reach of tens of millions, if not more.

Medicare, medicaid, and insurances aren't the problem. The medical culture in our country needs to change with or without UHC. Extra zeros get thrown on every price tag just because they can. Hospitals don't answer to shareholders. They need to get out of the Fortune 500 mindset.

It's all pure speculation on my part, but I think it would be interesting to find out. There is actually a solid example out right now. ZOOMCARE charges only $100 per visit and $50 for a video conference call. Whereas if you go to urgent care, it's pretty much a min of $250-300. It's affordable healthcare. Albeit, it may not be the top of the line, but people going there aren't looking for top of the line, they're just sick, want to get better, and paying top of the line for a visit where you just need antibiotics or a renew on prescription of asthma and allergies sounds a lot better than $300.

[Fugus]

Us healthcare is not truly privatized. You should start by rejecting the premise that it is privatized.

Medicare medicaid and health insurance are forms of socializing medicine. These things create tremendous upward pressure on prices.

In a privatized system, prices fall as competition increases.

The cell phone industry is privatized. cell phone prices continue to collapse as time passes because competition is fierce. If we treated the cell phone industry like the us treats health care, and create a federal subsidy to "guarantee" everyone a cell phone, the equivalent of medicare, it would create massive upward pressure on cell phone prices and they would start becoming increasingly expensive.

Health care costs only began to explode when we created medicare and medicaid.

Sometimes economics can be counterintuitive and this is one example. People believe giving "free" x to the poor makes it more accessible. It actually makes it less accessible over time because if money is no object, prices skyrocket. That is why when we dont give a crap about if the poor has cellphones, prices crater and soon everyone can have a cell phone.... While when we care deeply about giving everyone health care, prices rise until it becones impossible for people to have health care.

To help others economically, you just need to let go...

Just some added input.

The US pays more for Medicare and Medicaid then many pay for their whole system. We could make our system a carbon copy of the Canadian style healthcare system and we could actually get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, and the entire Congressional Healthcare programs as they would be redundant at that point. We would end up with a system that costs 33 to 66 percent less for vastly superior service that covers everyone and companies could no longer use healthcare as a bargaining chip to hold over your head.

The fact of the matter is you can never leave healthcare to the free market and expect it to be any good, US healthcare is a prime example of that. When it comes to for profit industries, they tend to be just good enough to get you to see them over their competition and just cheap enough to get you to pay. So, when you have something like this with astronomical costs of entry so there is next to no competition and a static demand that will be there no matter what the price, you end up with something just good enough to not get sued and as expensive as they can get it. That is why nothing critical should never be left to a profit venture.

Also, US cellphone service is considered crap by most other first world countries for the exact same reason both in quality of service, price and packages, no real competition (only 4 big companies) and demand no matter what. You have Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile. And AT&T actually tried to buy out T-mobile and the only thing that stopped the FCC from approving it was a lawyer messing up and leaking the real motive for the offer had nothing to do with quality of service and was only to buyout a competitor who kept undercutting their prices.

And as far as competition goes out here in healthcare, for anything major where I live, near Fort Bragg, we have maybe 5 hospitals total big enough to handle anything within 45 minutes drive of here. They are all owned by the same company so who do they have to compete against? You even go to 1 place to apply to any of them for jobs.

[Raptor With a Saber]

To sum this up with ease

One costs you money and makes people little money

The other costs you alot of money and people make alot of money off it.