US capitalist healthcare system compared to socialized medicine systems

Essentially repost from another forum. Impressive comparisons!

 

In addition to all this, I'm pretty sure that socialized medicine encourages everyone to push for better health habits among the public in order to keep medical visits and treatments to a minimum. Perhaps we would see a reduction in the obesity epidemic and better eating habits come out of it.

 

When the govenment is paying the bill they suddenly get real interested in keeping the population healthy

 

That's the impression I got just from the Supersize vs Superskinny show. Ever see that one? The host expresses concern for the UK's growing obesity problem and concerns about being able to afford treatments and other related expenses. He also sends obese people to the US to meet someone who is, shall we say, farther gone than they themselves are, as a kind of warning and wake-up call.

It is really sad to see people in that state, too. People with rotting feet, needing to use an oxygen tank, and unable to perform so many basic activities properly, like bathing. And our health care system, such as it is, has to cope with all of these sick people.

 

I think the best example of the government stepping in to reduce the health care burden was when Australia became the first country in the world to introduce mandatory seat belts

 

Bwahahaha, dream on.



Just sayin.

 

That's one area where America got wise also. I have to wonder whether it could have happened in today's nutcase conservative culture!

 

I see adding Sweden to this comparison is no longer cool because it completely trashes the Communist agenda of this argument.

If I am supposed to be objective here, I can tell that there are pros and cons with both systems and, in my book, there is a slight upper-hand for the Capitalist system, but that's just me. The biggest differences boil down to (i) availability, (ii) quality and (iii) financing.

With Socialised healthcare, the biggest con is the waiting-times or the availability. You will have to wait for a couple of hours each visit and if you need too see a specialist or a surgeon, the queues are as long as they can be. Private healthcare allows you to see your doctor almost immediately and it is actually possible to speak to your doctor on the telephone right away, without having to wait in line and/or having to talk to ten receptionists first.

When it comes to quality, the doctors in a socialised system are often stressed out because they have too much work to do and way too many patients to keep a track on. This means visits feel very unpersonal and the doctor is more interested in the queue outside his room than he is of you and your problems.

At private clinics, the doctor is less stressed and takes his time with each and every patient. A more personal relation is built between doctor and patient and additionally, the environment/interior is not as grey and boring as it is at socialised clinics.

A doctor is a doctor and of course wants nothing more than to help his patient. Therefore, the quality of treatment at the two systems is pretty much equal. However, all the leading hospitals are private and many times a socialised system leaves patients waiting so long that their condition worsens.

As far as financing goes, a socialised system is highly politicised since it is run by the government. It is maintained by each and every tax-payer and every patient still pays a smaller fee from their pocket at every visit. The private clinics are run by doctors and/or private companies. Every patient finances his own healthcare and it is also possible for them to buy insurances that can be used anywhere in the world. Sometimes, employees will offer you insurance as part of your salary and then your healthcare is pretty much "free" in the same way that the socialised alternative is. Best of all is that your private insurance can be used at state-hospitals as well.

All in all, the worst thing about a private system are the costs and that insurance companies will sometimes not help people with chronic diseases. With the socialised system, the worst thing are the waiting times and the poor relation between doctor and patient.

The best thing with the private system is that it allows you full access to all of the best hospitals in the whole world and the short waiting-times. The best thing with the socialised system is that it (appears to be) is free.

 

I'm proud to call myself an ultra right wing conservative, and the day we single payer health care in the United States is the day I start having a major interest in things I would otherwise think were your individual choice.

If I'm paying for it those fat kids(and adults) will be running laps and eating spinach until they're no longer disgusting fatties.

 

The biggest differences boil down to (i) availability, (ii) quality and (iii) financing.

That’s a concise summary of differences. A perfect healthcare system would be available as needed, have high quality of service and free to the consumer. And it is possible to do this. However reality dictates that this isn’t always the case. An obvious point is if you can’t afford to pay for it then it’s not available. This means that quality is irrelevant. That position assumes that health care is a commodity and not a service. If you see it as a commodity then the private approach makes sense. You either pay for it in cash, you use insurance so that it’s affordable if you’re not very wealthy or you go without. If you want healthcare to be a commodity then you get all these things. Too bad if you’re suffering the ills of unemployment without health insurance and poor health. May as well get your affairs in order and top yourself.

If you see health care as a service then you will make sure that it’s available, is of high quality and is financed by taxes. This can and is done. It just takes a shift of perspective to understand that position. Now just in case someone comes along with the nonsense argument that health care workers should then work for no pay, that isn't the case in any system, private or "socialised".

 

Where are you getting this crap? You're making it up... that's where. These problems can occasionally be found in the world in both private and socialized systems, but more in private systems.

Regarding copays, the OP addresses that accurately. Go look again.

A very common socialized system the right likes to point to as an example of long wait times and being unable to see the doctor of your choice, etc. etc. etc. is that of Canada. Here is a series of statements by Canadian doctors. And I'd say they know better than the righties who like to spread propaganda about them. ...

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10156332094277908

 

I only have experience of socialised healthcare and everything I have shared is baded on personal experience and research.

 

What country? Sweden? Do you think an additional expenditure of 20% more, and well placed/spent, could make Sweden's system great? It may require some serious redesigning but could such a change solve the problems you find?

 

I definitely think a liberalisation of the market would solve alot of Sweden's problem without it meaning that things become more expensive or that the poor can't afford healthcare. Japan is a great example of a country with low taxes and a mostly privatised welfare sector and they provide education and healthcare in absolute worldclass for all.

In Japan, one can choose between nationalised- and private insurance and how much you pay entirely depends on your financial situation. No matter what, your insurance covers more than 50% of all costs and if you are employed, you get other benefits such as pensions and "unemployment-saftey". Sweden pays around 10% of the GDP on healthcare yet it cannot provide sufficient services for 9 million people whereas Japan, who pays nothing near that amount can provide topclass healthcare for a good price for 130 million inhabitants.

 

Coverage of 50% of all costs is not acceptable and is less than what we already have for those who are covered in the US.

Economies and their GDP fluctuate. The better measure is the cost per capita. Assuming that Sweden is not going to liberalize their markets, and assuming that a 20% increase in carefully-spent funding could solve any existing healthcare problems in Sweden, such a total cost would be a full third less than what we are spending today in the USA. If we compare to Canada, we could say that if the US copied Canada's system "verbatim" and mechanically, and got the same costs per capita, and then spent 50% more to get a world-class system (which I cannot imagine would be necessary) we would cut our cost per-capita in the US by 25% by doing so. How can we justify not going in such directions?

 

The most urgent problems Sweden are facing are; (i) waiting times, (ii) nurse-deficency and (iii) regional differences.

Sweden has, I believe, the longest waiting times in all of EU and this is despite a steady increase of doctors over the last few years. The waiting times to see a specialist/surgeon will kill you and if you have to go to the emergency room, you can count on having to wait many, many hours. The nurses have terrible working conditions and awful salaries and therefore choose to quit their job. In some regions, the deficency is even more urgent and since bureaucrats run the healthcare, the supply is not generated by demand, but rather by prioritations - in northern parts of Sweden there are no childbirth-clinics and many mothers have to give birth in cars whereas others travel to Finland. Furthermore, procedure x may be entirely tax-funded in region a, but in region b, you have to pay for it yourself.

I recall reading a report suggesting that the average Swede pays around 5000 USD (38 000 SEK)/year for healthcare (taxes and individual costs combined). This does not cover dental-care, mind you!

This is extremely expensive, is it not?

 

No, pal, it's not. Here is a report of it costing $5,228 per capita. By comparison, the US cost is $9,451 per capita. Switzerland, Norway, Netherlands, and Germany cost more than Sweden. Interestingly Canada costs less and seems to have less problems.

Waiting times and nurse deficiencies should be correctable by increasing the supply of doctors and nurses. Some targeted incentives could address that it would seem. Regional differences? Probably also addressable by incentivizing as well come to think of it. So spending more as I suggested would be one way of correcting it maybe.

 

Nope, it is around 5000 USD/Swede. Here follows a list of how much healthcare costs per inhabitant in different regions and as you can see the average is somewhere around 23k SEK:


In Germany, I know, you can buy a private insurance for half the price.

 

Isn't that what I said?

 

I'm just gonna say 1 thing. Don't call the Ameican health insurance system a capitalist system, it isn't. It's a closed system devoid of choices or competition.

Now, if we really did have an open market for health care and health insurance, I'm betting you would see a drastic difference. The small percentage of people using concierge or cash only doctors and specialists see significant savings over their insurance paying peers.

 

Got any case histories of countries that implemented the sort of system you're advocating? Or is this all theory?

Making health a profit center is wrong. The conflicts of interests is astounding and any thinking person should oppose it.

I'll give you an example. I have a crown that is disintegrating. The insurance industry's "allowable minimum age for coverage of a crown replacement WAS 5 years. They recently raised it to 7 years. Mine is 6 years old so it's going to cost me $1,100 to get it fixed. Insurance won't pay anything. How is that reasonable? Does it stop me from going after a new crown every few years as a frivolous exercise in extravagance? No. It's simply a case of insurance improving profits by focusing on them instead of focusing on patient needs. That's a conflict of interests. Anyone who can't see this is blinded by partisanship.

 

All theory on a national scale. Just like Medicare for all is.

On a small, individual scale, cash only doctors and specialists are significantly cheaper than those that charge insurance companies.

 

Medicare-for-All has a significant precedent to study. So your analogy falls flat.

I edited my post to which you replied. Please go back and read what I wrote.

 

Can you post some of this Medicare for all precedent?


I completely agree with your point on the crown. The insurance industry has far too much power in making care choices for you.


As for the conflict of interest, I can make the exact same case for food sellers and for housing.

 

Sure. It's called "Medicare". It's real. It works.

Right. Socialism would sure solve all it all after it's stabilized and fully in place.