I looked at the links you provided regarding citizens of other countries switching to private insurance. I do not see anything in the articles that implies the switch is dramatic
Second article first line: “Private healthcare insurance plans have grown a whopping 400 percent in a decade ..”
although it does say it is increasing but when you read the fine print what they are talking about is “publicly funded” private healthcare. Its a hybrid system where private companies compete for public funds in the swedish system. I don’t have a problem with this if it provides greater efficiency but it doesn’t really support your contention that government should get out of the business of collecting revenues and insuring some form of universal
You’re ignoring the second article, which speaks directly to private health care insurance. It shows once again, how government offerings cannot compete with private options, without legislation hobbling the competition.
I never said that the private industry couldn’t be involved in a universal healthcare system, only that private industry in the US spends a smaller percentage of the dollar it collects on healthcare than the government run plan does. A hybrid system is nothing new and as the article says it has been the norm in Germany for some time.
The government run plan is also rife with corruption, as I specifically mentioned. As well, the private industry, as run in the US is strictly aligned with state legislation to hobble free market initiatives. Hybdrid systems are a step in the right direction, as evidenced by Sweden’s economic reform in the 1990s.
Your graph showing wait times for a specialist appointment is interesting but it doesn’t break out the reasons for visits. If these are visits for elective, non urgent situations then longer wait times are not necessarily an issue and since health outcomes are as good or better than ours in most of these plans I have to conclude that is the case.
Pardon me? Increased wait times for a specialist are always an issue, as I have demonstrated several times how they meant increased time experiencing severe pain or living with uncertainty of potentially serious illness. Also you keep assuming that if its private its market-driven, which I have shown otherwise.
In a well run plan you would expect wait times for non-urgent conditions to be longer as it should be since resources would be prioritized towards more urgent care and preventative care.
This makes absolutely no sense economically. It assumes a static amount of resources. You could use that exact logic to argue the bread lines of the former soviet union increased nutrition overall in comparsion to the wests free market approach, where food remains relatively ubiquitous. You’ve completely ignored the role of competition, deregulation and innovation, which I’ve previously pointed out, is greatly suppressed in your government lobbied health care options, public or private.
If you look at this graph you will see that wait times for urgent or sick visits demonstrate a very different picture.
Very different? Switzerland, Netherlands and New Zealand have low wait times, while western nations including US have long times, while Sweden, Norway and Canada (bastions of universal health care) have abysmal wait times.
Although among universal healthcare countries it does seem that those of you in Canada seem to suffer from some of the worst wait times. That seems to be a peculiarity of the canadian system not universal healthcare systems in general.
Strange how Sweden and Norway are excluded from your analysis. All three countries have employed universal health care for decades.
..The same person screaming at the waitress because his hamburger took too long is the same one demanding that their hysterectomy or hernia surgery be done yesterday.
I don’t think your helping your image here with these anecdotes.
Obviously this isn’t every case but a demanding public unwilling to wait for anything is one of the reasons our medical care is so expensive.
In the same way, a demanding impatient public is the cause for rising prices for food, clothing, water, shelter, technology, transportation, entertainment. Oh wait, actually the exact opposite is true.
It requires to much excess idle capacity which then leads to overuse.
No, hidden prices leads to overuse. Idle capacity is a sign of lack of incentive and innovation especially given the abysmal wait times you provided above.
A good doctor is able to assess when something is truly urgent and can intervene to expedite care when needed. I do it on occasion here when an HMO wants me to wait a week for a CT scan that really needs to be done immediately.
Again, at best youre making the best of a poor situation. But youre championing one faulty system over another.
Any well run universal health system needs to find a way to balance the need to control costs ( ie. by managing resources and limiting costs even if it results in longer wait times) while still allowing physicians to override guidelines when the situation dictates. I would think that Canada must have some process in place where your brothers doctor could expedite his procedure if he thought his health were actually in danger.
Of course there is. We have some excellent bread line managers in my country.
My point about the patient of mine who has to travel to Serbia for his hernia surgery was presented to make a point. The per capita income of serbs is irrelevant here.
No its not. Serbia offers a horrible system of health care, described as corrupt.
My point is that given the choice between a system such as the one you have where people have to wait longer for elective surgery but treatment is available to everyone and a system like ours where the “haves” can get elective surgery quickly but the 16% of people who are uninsured may not get it at all I would clearly choose yours.
You understand Serbs do not have the same access to their own healthcare as US or Canadians have right?
Also, why do you keep pushing a false dichotomy in terms of health care? It’s the same here in Canada, where the alternative to our state-controlled health care monopoly is a state-controlled corporate monopoly?
You have presented links concerning medical tourism but still have not shown how this supports your argument. Where does it say that people from Universal healthcare countries are participating in medical tourism at a greater rate than here in the U.S.?
People in the US rely on medical tourism to avoid escalating costs of a highly regulated health industry.
People in Canada rely on medical tourism to avoid abysmal wait times.
Where does it say that medical tourism is necessary in order for those people to get care? Does it result in better outcomes or is it as I said, simply an appeal to wants rather than needs?
Again, the crux of the problem is that you have taken it upon *yourself* to define what someone wants and someone needs. It is hard to find an ethical overlap with someone who repeatedly assumes this role.
My comment about spa treatments is not in the least bit condescending. Its a statement of fact. There are many reasons that people participate in medical tourism. A growing trend among medical tourists is the desire to have their gallbladder surgery or hysterectomy in a spa like environment…
Funny how the articles I find deal with liver transplants, hip and knee transplants etc.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to promote their wants as ‘needs’ someday in your great wisdom.
You’ve spent a lot of time telling us what you don’t like bout your own system and ours and have essentially panned the concept of universal healthcare throughout the worlds countries. What you have yet to do is explain with some detail what you would replace them with…
You’ve obviously ignored what my main point has been throughout. Government dominated services, in comparison to market driven analoges are inevitably slower and more costly. Ive enumerated how the US system of ‘private’ health care is in essence, government run. Ive given counter examples to your for-profit complaints that have had the opposite effect in every other industry they are employed.
My ‘solution’ ? Model what already works (deregulation, for-profit, competition), avoid what doesn’t (central legalized monopolistic bureaucracy).