By that logic all food production and distribution should not be privatized because is should be for the public good rather then the profit of the few.
There are are arguments to be made about private or public but that logic makes no sense.
Some system that have many private aspects outperform other public systems and the other way around. And even in a public system many people will profit as many of the companies that are your suppliers are still for profit.
> By that logic all food production and distribution should not be privatized because is should be for the public good rather then the profit of the few.
Sounds like good logic to me, at least for essentials!
If you want to make the argument that anything that is essential should be publicly owned you can make that argument. But I would suggest if you want to make that argument 'nobody should make profit' shouldn't be the relevant argument. The argument should be 'this is how we can solve X problem efficiently'.
Universal healthcare solves the problem. The US is #1 in science and tech, but spends the most with worse outcomes in general healthcare than other peer countries by far.
But it doesn't solve the problem. Does it sound like the nationalized healthcare in Australia is going well? How about Canada? The NHS in Great Britain?
Those countries DO have better healthcare outcomes than the US. You are so ignorant.
The US is #1 in developed countries for infant and maternal mortality.
Americans die from preventable and treatable causes at much higher rates than residents of peer countries, alongside a life expectancy of 79, or two to four years lower than the average for OECD countries.
We spend 18% of our GDP on healthcare, NEARLY DOUBLE the average of other peer countries.
The number one cause of bankruptcy is medical debt.
When will the American people wake up and realize their private healthcare model only benefits the rich that are able to afford the care.
>The US is #1 in developed countries for infant mortality.
This is only because the United States is unique in its huge amount of preterm babies, which some other developed countries do not even count within their infant mortality statistics. If we had the same average infant gestation length as Sweden, we would be tied for fourth best with France and Portugal, which considering how obese we are is pretty impressive. If we had that and adopted more restrictive reporting categories like Poland or the Netherlands, we could very well be reporting as the lowest.
You can cherry pick particular metrics to make the US healthcare system work better or worse than other countries. The US does badly on infant and maternal issues, but that's largely caused by social and lifestyle problems unrelated to healthcare. On the other hand we're at or near the top in 5-year survival rates for most forms of cancer.
Medical debt is not the number one cause of bankruptcy so you're simply wrong there. Most consumers who file for bankruptcy have some medical debt but the most common cause is a sudden loss of income (like losing their job). When consumers don't have enough cash to make ends meet they prioritize paying for food, housing, and transportation, and stop paying medical bills. Thus the medical debts tend to accumulate but this didn't really cause the bankruptcy.
I do support measures to reduce healthcare costs and improve access for patients but let's be clear about what's actually happening.
Its amazing to me how Americans (and others) act as if there are only 2 things in the world the US (private) system and public system that apparently everybody else on the planet has.
The US system is neither fully private nor are those other systems fully public. Its a false binary people use so they don't have to actually engage in the details of how different systems operate.
Nobody is arguing that the US has a good or 'the right' system. And nobody should argue that the British NHS (or systems like it) is some amazing magical place that gets everything right.
> When will the American people wake up and realize their private healthcare model only benefits the rich that are able to afford the care.
And yet one of the countries wit the lowest spending % of GDP on healthcare with very good outcomes has a system that has a lot of private aspects.
It's a technically both a private and public healthcare. But let's make this clear, it is dominated by private health insurance. The vast majority of people are privately insured through their job. The public insurance in America is not consistent, reliable, or good.
The US is #3 in the world for it spending on healthcare as a percentage of it's GDP, actually 16.69% in 2023, right behind Tuvalu and Nauru.
Maybe do some research before you state absurdly wrong things
Not vast. About 55% (workers and the family members) are covered by employer-sponsored health insurance. And that mostly self-selects for the younger and healthier so the coverage is less for random person.
Most retired people are not covered, and ironically very often the sick are not covered.
> absurdly wrong
I think you need to research the HN guidelines a bit more: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Okay: it’s obviously inefficient for some people to collect profit on essential services where competition is meaningless. That money should be going to improving the service for all, or paying the workers better, or ideally both. It would be more efficient to collectively organise food, shelter, healthcare, and other natural monopolies. Market competition can be for non-essentials where some inefficiency is acceptable.
You seem to think "efficiency" is the issue.
No. The issue is that there is an almost unlimited demand for healthcare.
That is true regardless of capitalism or marxism or whateverism you believe is the right answer.
Avoiding talking about money: it is easy to see the underlying issue of how should we balance a doctor's lifetime versus patients' needs versus the businesses that ultimately pay tax for it all.
We have public healthcare in New Zealand (a huge percentage of our economy is run by our government - almost socialist). Here we restrict healthcare by waitlists, beaurocracy, and other tricks. It mostly works, but the nurses that I know give too much, and are flaming out.
Meanwhile I've done the dirty boring capitalist work of bringing in overseas income to pay for our beautiful services, and I've reached my personal limit of balancing working harder versus gaining extra income (for myself and my government). I'm taxed at a demotivating rate. There's fuck all respect for being the guy bringing in the bacon to the country. I get to look forward to being treated like a boomer in a few years.
I love kumbayaa political beliefs, but not when I'm the donkey.
You’re talking at cross purposes here, there’s nothing “kumbaya” about what I’m saying. We all have to work hard for the stuff in this world and that would be the case whatever the economic system, for the foreseeable future. I just don’t want the result of that hard work to be hoarded by the bosses, that’s all.
The point is that I'm in a country that is closer to what you said you wanted (compared against the USA).
The vast majority of healthcare here is not profit oriented but instead is run by the NZ govt.
The purpose of most business is money, and few people would choose to be a boss without the financial winnings. I had the opportunity to roll the dice with everything: because fortunately I'm in a country that still has a backstop.
However the boss payout result is quite simply not worth the risk; because the median return for a startup is $0. Remaining an employee would have been a more sensible decision.
Other people like you complain, and I accept that is part of the deal I chose.
I am smart enough to have had the choice of alternative lifestyle paths like teaching or being an artist.
Meanwhile, I'm literally the guy paying for our social welfare and health system because I'm an export earner. Obviously the NZ economy deserves its return on its investment in me and our business environment.
But if you want to imply someone is greedy, then look at yourself or at your government.
There wouldn’t be half the complaints if we didn’t see the wealth disparity that we do, or the horror that is the US healthcare system. If you are running a respectable business that pays your employees fairly, has as good working conditions as you can, isn’t profiting from some fully privatised necessity, and pays its taxes, while it may not be my idea of utopia, you’re not the target of my ire.
I'm quite sure we are agreeing on many things.
I sometimes wonder whether capitalism is an emergent property? Or perhaps it is a dominant strategy. I visited Shenzhen and it was chokka full of entrepreneurs - I'm yet to structure my ideas around that.
Then I read about those weird papers that use basic trading strategies that result in power-law wealth distributions.
I always wonder when people complain about those that have more than them, because I seldom see them reflect upon themselves to see how much more they have than those below them. This especially applies to anyone living in the USA since everybody is relatively wealthy there, compared against most in the world. Too often I see the 1% complain about the 1%.
All healthcare systems I am aware of are horrors. Compare the US to the UK. We all struggle to understand the driving forces.
One underlying issue is that few people are proactive about the factors they control. Too many people are reckless with their health, and we all are great at excuses and casting blame elsewhere (and there can be evil that deserves some blame).
I'm fortunate enough that I know to chase intangibles.
Too many people let money dominate their worldview.
I'm also incredibly lucky to be born in New Zealand, where plenty of people also want good intangibles. And I see fewer in my circle here fight to get money/power/status.
I thought I disliked philosophy, but perhaps I like it ;)
No its not 'obviously inefficient'. And just asserting competition is 'meaningless' isn't actually an argument.
Neither food, nor shelter, nor healthcare are natural monopolies. As evidence by the fact that non of them are remotely monopolistic in places where there are no restrictions. Monopolies in these sectors are created and enforced by the state. Unless you are using a completely different definition from all economists.
Ironically major shops sell stables such as rice below price or at basically 0 margin, just to get people into the store where they might buy something of higher margin.
osmukka · · focus · HN ↗
panick21_ · · focus · HN ↗
There are are arguments to be made about private or public but that logic makes no sense.
Some system that have many private aspects outperform other public systems and the other way around. And even in a public system many people will profit as many of the companies that are your suppliers are still for profit.
dwb · · focus · HN ↗
Sounds like good logic to me, at least for essentials!
panick21_ · · focus · HN ↗
ourmandave · · focus · HN ↗
furytrader · · focus · HN ↗
Why would it be any different here?
ourmandave · · focus · HN ↗
Hospital bills causing bankruptcy.
Deciding between meds or food.
Donation jars at gas station checkouts begging for money to pay for a child's cancer treatment.
Putting off preventative care because of endless co-pays.
Out-of-network providers being a thing I have to worry.
Those problems I do know.
yodel_few · · focus · HN ↗
The US is #1 in developed countries for infant and maternal mortality.
Americans die from preventable and treatable causes at much higher rates than residents of peer countries, alongside a life expectancy of 79, or two to four years lower than the average for OECD countries.
We spend 18% of our GDP on healthcare, NEARLY DOUBLE the average of other peer countries.
The number one cause of bankruptcy is medical debt.
When will the American people wake up and realize their private healthcare model only benefits the rich that are able to afford the care.
sickofparadox · · focus · HN ↗
This is only because the United States is unique in its huge amount of preterm babies, which some other developed countries do not even count within their infant mortality statistics. If we had the same average infant gestation length as Sweden, we would be tied for fourth best with France and Portugal, which considering how obese we are is pretty impressive. If we had that and adopted more restrictive reporting categories like Poland or the Netherlands, we could very well be reporting as the lowest.
ourmandave · · focus · HN ↗
nradov · · focus · HN ↗
Medical debt is not the number one cause of bankruptcy so you're simply wrong there. Most consumers who file for bankruptcy have some medical debt but the most common cause is a sudden loss of income (like losing their job). When consumers don't have enough cash to make ends meet they prioritize paying for food, housing, and transportation, and stop paying medical bills. Thus the medical debts tend to accumulate but this didn't really cause the bankruptcy.
I do support measures to reduce healthcare costs and improve access for patients but let's be clear about what's actually happening.
ourmandave · · focus · HN ↗
Lose your job from injury and you're well and truly screwed.
nradov · · focus · HN ↗
yodel_few · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
panick21_ · · focus · HN ↗
The US system is neither fully private nor are those other systems fully public. Its a false binary people use so they don't have to actually engage in the details of how different systems operate.
Nobody is arguing that the US has a good or 'the right' system. And nobody should argue that the British NHS (or systems like it) is some amazing magical place that gets everything right.
> When will the American people wake up and realize their private healthcare model only benefits the rich that are able to afford the care.
And yet one of the countries wit the lowest spending % of GDP on healthcare with very good outcomes has a system that has a lot of private aspects.
yodel_few · · focus · HN ↗
The US is #3 in the world for it spending on healthcare as a percentage of it's GDP, actually 16.69% in 2023, right behind Tuvalu and Nauru.
Maybe do some research before you state absurdly wrong things
robocat · · focus · HN ↗
Not vast. About 55% (workers and the family members) are covered by employer-sponsored health insurance. And that mostly self-selects for the younger and healthier so the coverage is less for random person.
Most retired people are not covered, and ironically very often the sick are not covered.
> absurdly wrong
I think you need to research the HN guidelines a bit more: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dwb · · focus · HN ↗
robocat · · focus · HN ↗
No. The issue is that there is an almost unlimited demand for healthcare.
That is true regardless of capitalism or marxism or whateverism you believe is the right answer.
Avoiding talking about money: it is easy to see the underlying issue of how should we balance a doctor's lifetime versus patients' needs versus the businesses that ultimately pay tax for it all.
We have public healthcare in New Zealand (a huge percentage of our economy is run by our government - almost socialist). Here we restrict healthcare by waitlists, beaurocracy, and other tricks. It mostly works, but the nurses that I know give too much, and are flaming out.
Meanwhile I've done the dirty boring capitalist work of bringing in overseas income to pay for our beautiful services, and I've reached my personal limit of balancing working harder versus gaining extra income (for myself and my government). I'm taxed at a demotivating rate. There's fuck all respect for being the guy bringing in the bacon to the country. I get to look forward to being treated like a boomer in a few years.
I love kumbayaa political beliefs, but not when I'm the donkey.
dwb · · focus · HN ↗
robocat · · focus · HN ↗
The vast majority of healthcare here is not profit oriented but instead is run by the NZ govt.
The purpose of most business is money, and few people would choose to be a boss without the financial winnings. I had the opportunity to roll the dice with everything: because fortunately I'm in a country that still has a backstop.
However the boss payout result is quite simply not worth the risk; because the median return for a startup is $0. Remaining an employee would have been a more sensible decision.
Other people like you complain, and I accept that is part of the deal I chose.
I am smart enough to have had the choice of alternative lifestyle paths like teaching or being an artist.
Meanwhile, I'm literally the guy paying for our social welfare and health system because I'm an export earner. Obviously the NZ economy deserves its return on its investment in me and our business environment.
But if you want to imply someone is greedy, then look at yourself or at your government.
dwb · · focus · HN ↗
robocat · · focus · HN ↗
I sometimes wonder whether capitalism is an emergent property? Or perhaps it is a dominant strategy. I visited Shenzhen and it was chokka full of entrepreneurs - I'm yet to structure my ideas around that.
Then I read about those weird papers that use basic trading strategies that result in power-law wealth distributions.
I always wonder when people complain about those that have more than them, because I seldom see them reflect upon themselves to see how much more they have than those below them. This especially applies to anyone living in the USA since everybody is relatively wealthy there, compared against most in the world. Too often I see the 1% complain about the 1%.
All healthcare systems I am aware of are horrors. Compare the US to the UK. We all struggle to understand the driving forces.
One underlying issue is that few people are proactive about the factors they control. Too many people are reckless with their health, and we all are great at excuses and casting blame elsewhere (and there can be evil that deserves some blame).
I'm fortunate enough that I know to chase intangibles.
Too many people let money dominate their worldview.
I'm also incredibly lucky to be born in New Zealand, where plenty of people also want good intangibles. And I see fewer in my circle here fight to get money/power/status.
I thought I disliked philosophy, but perhaps I like it ;)
panick21_ · · focus · HN ↗
Neither food, nor shelter, nor healthcare are natural monopolies. As evidence by the fact that non of them are remotely monopolistic in places where there are no restrictions. Monopolies in these sectors are created and enforced by the state. Unless you are using a completely different definition from all economists.
Ironically major shops sell stables such as rice below price or at basically 0 margin, just to get people into the store where they might buy something of higher margin.