It's an over generalization but think this person has a point. The US health system has it problems (cost!!), but have read that since it's money driven instead of a government service, compared to other healthcare systems, it's often got a shorter wait time to see a doctor. This makes sense, a lot of students want to become doctors in the US, because they can make a lot of money
I feel like the >(cost!!) factor can't really be overstated there. IF you have money then you can get healthcare, if you don't, then you're out of luck. It's a massive gate which needs to be passed, and if you can't pass, then you're locked out with no alternative.
That doesn't sound great to me (read: broken), because it means its not evenly accessible across your society. I wouldn't count that as a good system to be honest.
I have limited experience with the New Zealand and Japanese medical systems, and from a similarly arms-length engagement with them, I think I would prefer them over everything I've read about the US system. You still have the same issues with having to advocate for yourself, but you can at least get access to good healthcare across the board - and if you go private (which as a late 30s / early 40s guy, cost around NZ$60 / month), you can get access to care at private facilities much faster than via public.
It is most definitely imperfect, but it _is_ designed to be accessible to everyone.
I explored specializing in health econ in college. My professor put it this way - health care is a scarce good. There's only so many doctors, so much medicine, so many beds. You have to control access to the goods somehow, otherwise you have Tragedy of the Commons.
In the rest of the world, it's controlled by extended wait times. In the US, it's cost. You can have moral arguments about what's fair, but that's the economic reality.
At the time I as studying this (early 2010's), the average wait time of diagnosis to first treatment for breast cancer in the US was 12 days. In NIH, it was 5 months.
You read that where? What evidence do you have? In my experience, Americans are often blissfully unaware about how poor their health services are.
As someone who has seen many health services up close (from founding a health tech company and literally visiting myriad health establishments around the world, over the past few decades), the US hospitals and clinics always struck me as the most run down. But as soon as I walked in the boardroom at UHG or HCA, it suddenly all became a lot more glamorous.
And whilst the US does ok with cancer outcomes, so do other nations like Germany, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Canada, and the United Kingdom.
Most advanced nations have universal healthcare with similar outcomes to the US, but for significantly less money. They also don’t leave citizens destitute for having the unmitigated gall to impose an unexpected health emergency on themselves.
The US system funnels profit, it doesn’t provide better healthcare.
>It's worse everywhere else. There are no specialists in all of the government-run systems I've dealt with and at some point, you really have no options left.
>Canada introduced MAID for this reason.
What is it with Americans being so confidently ignorant about everything?
Canada introduced MAID because someone who wanted MAID sued the government and asserted that banning MAID violated their constitutional rights. It went all the way to the supreme court, and the (federal) government fought tooth and nail AGAINST allowing MAID.
It should be noted that the Provinces are responsible for healthcare, but it was the federal government who banned MAID prior to the 2015 supreme court case via the criminal code.
So, in short, stay in your lane. You have no idea what you're talking about.
> It's worse everywhere else.
You’ve dealt with every health system on earth as a patient?
> There are no specialists in all of the government-run systems
This is completely inaccurate. Every government run system has specialists.
Everything you have said is incorrect.
It's an over generalization but think this person has a point. The US health system has it problems (cost!!), but have read that since it's money driven instead of a government service, compared to other healthcare systems, it's often got a shorter wait time to see a doctor. This makes sense, a lot of students want to become doctors in the US, because they can make a lot of money
I feel like the >(cost!!) factor can't really be overstated there. IF you have money then you can get healthcare, if you don't, then you're out of luck. It's a massive gate which needs to be passed, and if you can't pass, then you're locked out with no alternative.
That doesn't sound great to me (read: broken), because it means its not evenly accessible across your society. I wouldn't count that as a good system to be honest.
I have limited experience with the New Zealand and Japanese medical systems, and from a similarly arms-length engagement with them, I think I would prefer them over everything I've read about the US system. You still have the same issues with having to advocate for yourself, but you can at least get access to good healthcare across the board - and if you go private (which as a late 30s / early 40s guy, cost around NZ$60 / month), you can get access to care at private facilities much faster than via public.
It is most definitely imperfect, but it _is_ designed to be accessible to everyone.
3 replies →
I explored specializing in health econ in college. My professor put it this way - health care is a scarce good. There's only so many doctors, so much medicine, so many beds. You have to control access to the goods somehow, otherwise you have Tragedy of the Commons.
In the rest of the world, it's controlled by extended wait times. In the US, it's cost. You can have moral arguments about what's fair, but that's the economic reality.
At the time I as studying this (early 2010's), the average wait time of diagnosis to first treatment for breast cancer in the US was 12 days. In NIH, it was 5 months.
> but have read
You read that where? What evidence do you have? In my experience, Americans are often blissfully unaware about how poor their health services are.
As someone who has seen many health services up close (from founding a health tech company and literally visiting myriad health establishments around the world, over the past few decades), the US hospitals and clinics always struck me as the most run down. But as soon as I walked in the boardroom at UHG or HCA, it suddenly all became a lot more glamorous.
And whilst the US does ok with cancer outcomes, so do other nations like Germany, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Canada, and the United Kingdom.
Most advanced nations have universal healthcare with similar outcomes to the US, but for significantly less money. They also don’t leave citizens destitute for having the unmitigated gall to impose an unexpected health emergency on themselves.
The US system funnels profit, it doesn’t provide better healthcare.
> Canada introduced MAID for this reason.
No they didn't.
There are tons of specialists in Canada. You're talking out of your ass.
>It's worse everywhere else. There are no specialists in all of the government-run systems I've dealt with and at some point, you really have no options left.
>Canada introduced MAID for this reason.
What is it with Americans being so confidently ignorant about everything?
Canada introduced MAID because someone who wanted MAID sued the government and asserted that banning MAID violated their constitutional rights. It went all the way to the supreme court, and the (federal) government fought tooth and nail AGAINST allowing MAID.
It should be noted that the Provinces are responsible for healthcare, but it was the federal government who banned MAID prior to the 2015 supreme court case via the criminal code.
So, in short, stay in your lane. You have no idea what you're talking about.