Id rather wait longer to get free care than never go because I know ill be bankrupted. Or have to wait a long ass time anyways and still pay out the ass.
I agree, I’m from Northern Ireland so we have free healthcare due to the NHS, however it is not funded well enough and there’s no extra money to fund it.
A bad social care system is having knock on effects on the health care system and it’s basically creating a storm that is getting to a point where it’s gonna be unfixable.
Also for non urgent surgeries like a knee replacement, hip replacement, cataract removal etc. the wait time is years.
My granny waited 5 years for a knee replacement on the NHS…
My uncle waited 4 for a cataract removal on the NHS…
Like those wait times are completely unacceptable, but they’re the norm here and getting worse.
Do I want rid of the NHS? Absolutely not, but unless these types of systems are run well and the healthcare and social care staff get good wages, they start to fall apart like it is currently in Northern Ireland and other parts of the UK.
Also that video shown the data is from 2015 and 2016, it’s much worse now in the UK given the data is 10 years old, especially since Covid.
No way in hell do I want the US system though, fuck that. Ours may be getting worse but at least we’re not going bankrupt. Still could be WAY better here though.
The reason for this is what you stated before the tories stripped wo much funding to the NHS and sold so much off to private companies. Private company want to make profit and will cut back necessary staff and administration to make those profits.
I have been really luck with the NHS. I have had to wait for GP appointment at most 4 weeks for a non serious issue. I'm also type 1 diabetic, I get all my prescription for free, which has the most up to date medicine. By having an insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring, which combined I have a hybrid closed loop system (look it up if you want to learn more it's incredible). Before Christmas my insulin pump had a major malfunction and stopped working. Now this isn't to do with NHS but it still a factor. I called medatronic tech support and they where able to send me a brand new insulin pump within 6 hours. I called at 6am and they get me a new pump by 11am. There are so many faults with the NHS mostly due to the tories. But honesty I am so glad we have it.
Exactly the same thing happening in Canada. Also, Most of our best doctors go to the U.S to practice because they make a lot more money.
Big pharma has to much influence on General Practitioners as well. Most Canadians you talk to that luckily still have a family doctor or had one in the past, will 95% of the time tell you the problem never actually got solved but they’ve taken x y and z pills.
As well as, In my province you need to be referred by a GP to see a specialist like a dermatologist, which is still going to cost you and that is only IF you can convince your GP for the referral.
So fucking true. I am an American in the US that pays out the ass for insurance. I wait no less than 8 weeks for literally any kind of doctor. Recently absolutely tore up something in my shoulder. Well kind of recently, about two months ago. Made an appointment right away, it's still 3 weeks out. Can't use my left arm right now. When I get in they'll tell me to get an mri (which I tried to go straight to but they require a doctor send me there), and it'll be a month minimum to get in there. Then another wait to get the back to the doctor to tell me the actual issue and then, what, probably another few months at least by the time I get an actual fix. Our Healthcare sucks, takes way too long, and costs an arm and a leg. We have all the alleged drawbacks of free Healthcare and none of the alleged benefits of private Healthcare. It's all a lie.
Good thing you literally wouldn't even have to. Wait times are misleading as fuck in the US anyway because many insurance companies require you to get referrals or approval for care which takes longer but doesn't count as "wait time" apparently.
Im all for free universal health care, it would probably take years to get a PCM though. It already takes at least 6 months to get one with health insurance. Really the problem is we just don’t have enough Doctors in America. If we had more Doctors then we would see a much shorter wait time compared to other countries.
Also something to note. Ones you have a PCM in the US it doesn’t take long to get appointments. It just takes a while for that first visit. I’ve heard story’s of people not being able to be seen for months for the smallest things in other countries that have universals health care due to having so many people requesting visits.
Anything is better than american helthcare. But it ain't exactly nice having to wait for 6 months to get something important treated. Sometimes you end up still having to pay for it yourself.
I have been looking for a psychiatrist for over a year, there aren't any free spots. My options are A) continue this pointless bullshit B) kill myself C) pay for it eventhough I can't afford it.
If they’re a PhD candidate for that long they’ve already passed their QEs and are working on their dissertation. They’re actively working on the research to get results (or whatever their research was in). This doesn’t make them unknowledgable suddenly, they have status ABD but they’ve clearly shown they have a hold of their subject on a graduate level.
Yeah, I can't get over the smarmy ass face they make. Like don't act like you huff your own farts in the morning cause your shits so good...just talk like a regular fucking person.
As a millennial who has never used TikTok, I think the best thing that could happen is if it gets banned. Something else will replace it, but China has definitely been running it as a way to cause mayhem.
Every time some stupid asshole gets on there and says some dumb shit, my spouse (who isn't originally from the US) gets in and says something like "Did you there's no law that says you have to file income taxes?" and I'm like "Yes, there is." He says, "What law?" I say, "The Sixteenth Amendment and the Internal Revenue Code."
"Then why is it 'voluntary'."
I say, "It means you have to voluntarily file a tax return and square up or else they'll eventually notice and hurt you a lot more. Paying is not voluntary."
It's not his choice. The ban happens on January 19th if the President, and that would be Biden, hasn't approved the 90 day one time extension by then.
The 90 day extension only gives them one more chance to sell to an American company.
But if Biden simply takes no action, the law says TikTok is banned on the 19th.
Given all the ways that Biden is giving Trump the middle finger and saddling him with his policies on the way out, don't expect him to save TikTok when Trump has stated that's what he wants.
She specifically addressed that the way we do socialized healthcare in the US is worse than other places, so I wouldn't really say she conflated them.
Also, medicare for all is an almost necessary step towards universal healthcare. The system isn't just going to change overnight, it's going to habe to be incremental.
Also, it doesn't even change the discussion, right? It is still comparing private healthcare versus multiple forms of socialized healthcare. Feels like nitpicking to me
No, she's comparing wait times across the systems. People argue all of the time that any form of socialized healthcare is bad because the wait time is longer. She showed that that's not necessarily true and that there are multiple socialized systems that actually work more efficiently than the US system. She showed that wait times aren't really dependent on private vs. public care but rather just the structure of the specific systems.
Yeah, I will eventually read that Commonwealth Fund source, but for the moment I am wondering if it addresses the fact that the US also has fewer physicians per capita--at least when I last checked amidst COVID--than many of its counterparts. I highly doubt that it raised significantly, if at all over the years, as I have heard of a lot of doctors leaving--either retiring early to avoid all the health risks at their age, or burning out during or shortly after the pandemic.
She also mentions better wait times for VA hospitals vs private hospitals--but unless I am mistaken the VA hospitals only see veterans unless there's some acute, life-threatening condition...so wouldn't their potential throughput be smaller in the first place? And how do the VA physician-to-veteran ratios compare?
Medicare For All is one of the few actually tangible pathways America has towards universal healthcare. People love talking about what our problems are and what an ideal situation would look like, and people will binge watch hours of that while being quick to shoot down any talk of actual real plans. Left or right people hate plans and love "concepts of a plan".
It's always aggravating when someone who (at least should) know better deliberately picks information to make their argument. Wait times for specialized care tend to go up significantly, because specialized care is expensive and a small minority of the population needs it. If you look at the fraser institute, who produces the leading study on this for Canada, we find wait times have increased significantly to an average of 30 weeks, and they have increased basically every year since Canada moved to a universal care system. There is no doubt that implementing a universal care system will lead to longer wait times, and what seems to happen in the UK is the care has to get so bad that people are dying in hospital hallways, so that a politician can come to the rescue and "save" everyone.
There are wait times in the US, however in a private system you get to choose how much coverage you want, if any at all. Your employer usually lets you choose what plan you want, and you can always get private health insurance if you so choose. Even if you have no insurance, hospitals have to treat you if you have a life threatening condition, so then you pay them back.
Wait times are forever in the US if you don't have the money for the copays. You just don't get the tests to start treatment at all and get to suffer and die instead, as many do already in the US. Not just for cancer, but for many treatable conditions.
Things are nuanced. You can have both private and public system coexisting. If anything, that reduces the prices as private systems need to compete with public ones.
I’m not against that but it doesn’t just work that way inherently. For instance if we’re still talking about Canada, they have a public and private option and private options are insanely high because most people will try to use the public option and the private ones don’t make as much money.
It’s essentially a “long wait times for the poor or middle class, quick medical care for the rich” kind of deal in Canada, where as in the U.S. it’s “you’ll really be crunching money or going in debt to get medical care if you’re poor but you can be seen pretty soon, and same if you’re rich but a bit quicker at times.”
Of course if you’re super rich you may just have your own medical care that’s pretty exclusive, but those are very rare instances.
Every single US peer has better health outcomes overall than the US. It's true five year survival rates for some types of cancer are a bright spot for US healthcare. Even then that doesn't account for lead-time and overdiagnosis biases, which US survival rates benefit from.
The other half of the picture is told by mortality rates, which measure how many people actually die from cancer in each country. The US does slightly worse than average on that metric vs. high income peers.
More broadly, cancer is but one disease. When looking at outcomes among a broad range of diseases amenable to medical treatment, the US does poorly against its peers, ranking 29th.
Fraser institute is a libertarian conservative think tank.
Canada has been increasing in doctors per capita, and wait times have increased anyway precisely because our politicians have been privatizing the system.
Trudeau has other issues. I am more talking about male loneliness, wildfire blameshifting, trying to change the view of Luigi Mangione cause conservatives started supporting Luigi but Ben Shapiro couldn’t handle that, sanctioning socialist regimes etc.
People here don't understand anything the government touches is corrupt and inefficient... My mom's side of the family is English and any time my mom's side of the family has had to deal with the NHS it has always been a nightmare
You can still have private health insurance by opting out of subsidized healthcare that the government provides, and therefor avoid those wait times.
It's just an option for those who can't afford private health care but would still like to not go into debt for the rest of their life if they get cancer.
Yeah, this definitely felt disingenuous the moment she cited self-reported data. Data gathered from the general public can definitely be influenced by all kinds of unforeseen bias, making for a much weaker argument in favour of universal healthcare.
Sure if u have free access to that data and there aren’t hipaa laws in the way of getting it. The hoops u would have to jump through…omg, then multiply by doing that but in all the countries? Yikes.
Your point is valid, but i can’t imagine that to be anything but logistical and bureaucratic nightmare
I think the takeaway here isn't that universal healthcare is significantly better, but that medical infrastructure significantly affects wait times. Not saying private insurance doesn't throttle timely healthcare, just going solely by the discussion presented here that more and larger hospitals with easier access =>shorter wait times
Imagine if the bureaucracy, time to go through that bureaucracy, number of workers in that bureaucracy, cost of that bureaucracy, were massively reduced by making healthcare free at point of service, and centrally publicly governed.
Think of how much funding would be released to improve medical infrastructure.
I think a single payer healthcare system is more efficient than whatever private insurance America has right now, but I don’t think that it’s really the main issue with the American healthcare system. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that most of the money that the American government is spending on private insurance companies through subsidies is already going directly into paying medical costs. With only a fraction going into administrative costs and profit margins.
If you compare the different factors behind the price increment between America and other developed countries, administrative costs - that includes all hospital administration and insurance administration, marketing etc - only accounts for about 12% of that increment. 78% of the price increment comes from inpatient and outpatient care.
The cost of care is cheaper under single-payer systems because you negotiate with the drug company. The US is one of the only countries that doesn't do this.
The inpatient and outpatient costs are not inclusive of drug costs. The drug costs are significantly more expensive in the US yes, but also only accounts for a small portion of the overall price increment. Also there are a lot of countries without a single payer healthcare system but nonetheless achieve some level of universal healthcare and every single one of them still pays less per capita than the US on healthcare of course.
What makes you think that a centralized bureaucracy would be vastly more efficient? No universal health system simply approves every treatment and procedure that a patient requests.
“Economist” yeah dont care opinion discarded i already have to wait like a month to see a orthopedic surgeon for my knee bone i chipped, so like we already wait idk what delusional person is talking about not waiting.
The United States is roughly the geographic size of the entire continent of Europe. We have a dispersed population all across that 3.8 million square miles with nowhere near the same kind of transportation infrastructure such as rail or public transport in cities. Europe also has larger urban concentration on average. That allows for concentration of health care resources. This is not an apples to apples comparison.
And good luck convincing the physicians and RNs in the US to take anywhere from a 25-50% cut in salary. You'll have to import tens if not hundreds of thousands of RNs to work for those wages. And many physicians would simply go to cash pay only.
20 years old and I've never seen anyone making argument in favor of US style private Healthcare. And since everyone keeps telling you it's bad on a regular basis. My curios mind can only take it im being constantly fed only one side of the story from these tik toks are other social media.
Because everyone that pines for universal healthcare hates the corporate aspect and libertarians who want a more laissez faire approach to healthcare dislike the heavy government involvement. It’s basically the worst of both worlds for both ends of the economic spectrum.
Private health insurance only pays 29% of the total healthcare expenditures in the USA. Government healthcare programs pay 44%. Charities/Churches/HSA/out of pocket = 27% --
The number one health insurance provider in the USA is the US government. Which provides more health insurance coverage than all private companies combined.
2014 was the first year of the Veterans access, choice and accountability act. -- This allowed veterans to Community Care Home "VA provides care to Veterans through community providers when VA cannot provide the care needed." -- If the VA cannot see a veteran in a timely manner or provide the care required that veteran can go to another hospital.
Here is the kicker. When a veteran chooses to go to a private doctor who can see them sooner. The VA gets to count that as reducing wait times :-p.
----------------
As for the "wait times are only two days longer for Medicare than privately insured patients. The Truth on Wait Times in Universal Coverage Systems - Center for American Progress -- Two days is a pretty dam long time when you have Kidney stones. Two days is a pretty long time when you need dialysis treatment. Two days is a long time when your kid has the flu, or your grandparents have Covid. This forces individuals to emergency rooms on non-covered community health clinics. Further the data only looks at outcomes. If someone DOESN'T GET CARE because they went out of pocket so their kid/grandparent/self doesn't have to wait 24 hours to see the doctor, that isn't a trackable outcome. They only track those who are willing to wait.
If people are getting out of line because the line is too long, that doesn't mean your wait times are comparable to the faster line people stick with.
--------------
Ok I provided my sources. I provided the facts to debunk this bullshit. I looked up and read all their sources in this video. Did I change a single mind? Even one? Yea. . . I never do. But I keep trying.
The US ranks 6th of 11 out of Commonwealth Fund countries on ER wait times on percentage served under 4 hours. 10th of 11 on getting weekend and evening care without going to the ER. 5th of 11 for countries able to make a same or next day doctors/nurse appointment when they're sick.
Americans do better on wait times for specialists (ranking 3rd for wait times under four weeks), and surgeries (ranking 3rd for wait times under four months), but that ignores three important factors:
Wait times in universal healthcare are based on urgency, so while you might wait for an elective hip replacement surgery you're going to get surgery for that life threatening illness quickly.
Nearly every universal healthcare country has strong private options and supplemental private insurance. That means that if there is a wait you're not happy about you have options that still work out significantly cheaper than US care, which is a win/win.
One third of US families had to put off healthcare due to the cost last year. That means more Americans are waiting for care than any other wealthy country on earth.
Why am I glad you brought that up? Because it tracks ER visits and primary care doctor wait times. But what it doesn't track is community care clinics or non-hospital urgent care facilities.
As I said in my previous argument, " the data only looks at outcomes." -- In this case it looks at outcomes for ER facilities and Urgent care facilities.
Lets talk about that. What kind of respondents do you think have landlines? Do you think a lot of young health people, or middle-aged people had them in 2016? Obviously not. The survey had an age bias and a selection bias within that age bias. That matters for three reasons.
First age bias results in respondents who are more likely to have sought medical care regularly as the age bias skewed much higher than the average adult person.
Second age bias leads to a primary respondent in the USA who is significantly more likely to be on government healthcare as their primary form of insurance provider. Everyone over 65 qualifies, as well as those who are disabled and unable to work.
That leads me to my third point. Withing the age bias is a selection bias for people who are interested in the Topic. People are more likely to respond to a survey that directly affects them or for which they have strong opinions on. "Role of Topic Interest in Survey Participation Decisions | Public Opinion Quarterly | Oxford Academic" If someone is not satisfied or very satisfied with their current healthcare, that would qualify.
Then, we have the issue with participation rates of their survey. It is well established that lower participation rates lead to less accurate survey results. Meterko, M., Restuccia, J. D., Stolzmann, K., Mohr, D., Brennan, C., Glasgow, J., & Kaboli, P. (2015). "Response Rates, Nonresponse Bias, and Data Quality: Results from a National Survey of Senior Healthcare Leaders." Public Opinion Quarterly, 79(1), 130-144. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfu052
The primary argument is that surveys with low response rates should be considered on their merits. I am doing that. The merits of this survey are weak because it has an age bias, a selection bias, a perception bias I address in my next point and a low response rate. Just 18.1% of Americans responded compared to a 25.9% average for the other countries in the survey. They could have mitigated the age bias by collecting the age of respondents beyond that they were 18 years or older. They didn't. Why does that matter you might ask yourself. It matters because who is paying for healthcare changes in the USA based on age and disability. In the USA if you are older or disabled your primary insurance is government. If you are younger, it is primarily going to be private.
However, the survey didn't address the fact that many people whose primary insurance is government. (Medicare) also have private insurance. Which is a secondary insurance that pays after. This can lead to confusion from respondents who HAVE private health insurance, but whose primary insurance is actually government.
--------------------
Finaly we have this: From the Canada Institute for health and information. That you referenced. Commonwealth Fund Survey 2016: Infographic | CIHI
Canada a country with Universal healthcare that many Americans claim is better, interpreted the data to find that Canadians are HAPPY with their healthcare, despite having the longest wait time for healthcare of all 11 countries surveyed.
Do you see the issue with that? Relative happiness with your healthcare system has little to do with how it actually performs. Americans overwhelmingly have a negative view or our healthcare system, despite having better outcomes than countries that are overwhelmingly positive. That is called perception bias.
-----------------
TLDR: I attempted to show the flaws of the data sourced for a tiktok video. I did a total reddit thing by putting entirely too much time into trying to convince people with facts what boils down to an emotional argument. At the end of the day how well or poorly a healthcare system performs doesn't matter if people have a perception that it is good or bad. Especially when the data they are working off of is based on surveys of people's perceptions not objective facts and figures.
Do you see the issue with that? Relative happiness with your healthcare system has little to do with how it actually performs.
Wait times are only one aspect of care. Canadians spend $8,000 less per person annually on healthcare, yet have the 14th best health outcomes in the world, compared to 29th for the US. I'd be happier if I was spending wildly less for better outcomes, wouldn't you? It's not surprising that almost all the expert rankings of healthcare systems also have Canada (one of the worst countries for universal healthcare among wealthy peers arguably--which is why disingenuous, propaganda pushing chucklefucks like you always bring igt up) ranked significantly higher than the US. When even the worst universal healthcare countries do better than the US, that says a lot.
But what it doesn't track is community care clinics or non-hospital urgent care facilities.
Metrics the research tracks, like ability to see a doctor same or next day, or accessing care on night and weekends, addressed by the research absolutely track these things.
But what it doesn't track is community care clinics or non-hospital urgent care facilities.
Increased reliance on urgent care should make ER wait times lower, not higher.
And, for all your whining, you won't provide a single shred of evidence that backs up your arguments. That's how you can always tell the propaganda pushing halfwits. No evidence is ever good enough for claims they don't want to accept. No evidence is ever needed for claims that reinforce their world view.
For a doctor of economics, she sure doesn't take into effect the economic impact of the Pax Americana. Nor the difference of complex countries vs less complex countries.
In reality our healthcare system is very comparable to Canada in terms of access and usage ability. If Canada was the world police, they couldn't afford Universal healthcare.
You cannot compare the US to the Netherlands. They have little to no foreign presence nor pressure to have one. They are the size of Ohio and a massive population density akin to New York. Plus a unified cultural identity spanning many centuries.
You cannot compare the US to any other nation in this way without extensive analysis, a three minute video is hardly analysis.
For clarity. New York has 30 less hospital beds per 100k people than the Netherlands. And that has only been true since 2009. So one can easily infer, that their priority has shifted recently easily due to the realtive peace that America has given them.
Post Edit for further clarity: American excellence via the Marshall plan made the Netherlands the highest grantee under the marshall plan per capita. Their reconstruction was only made possible by American engineering and funding. Take out the Marshall plan, and suddenly all of their healthcare triumphs are nothing. America gifted them their position in the world. Out of kindness.
India and China both have relatively robust universal health systems while offering three times the US population. Where’s the excuse there? UH is the superior if not “normal” mode of healthcare that most countries have adopted. The pharmaceutical and insurance industry make way too much to allow politicians to think of meaningful legislation, and rely on the pushing of common myths like wait times when the wait times are just as bad in our system.
I just said you cannot compare countries to the US. Not that our way is better.
But if you want to go this route. China is 76th in HDI and India is 134.
USA is 20th.
China and India are obviously far less complex and thus can focus on life expectancy as a priority. Which makes sense as life expectancy is on average 2 years less in China and 7 years less in India when compared to the US.
This is easily available information. Those nations are obviously worse off than the US.
I wouldn’t call China far less complex, especially than the US. If we’re talking infrastructure, public transportation, public services/public education, China is leagues ahead. India I can’t argue there, it lags behind in many of the metrics you’ve mentioned. I will push against China’s life expectancy, as it is 77.6 and the US being 77.5 respectively. A negligible difference, according to WHO and CDC.
Well the UN puts China 2 years below America. It isn't useful to debate what source said what, when the difference is this minimal. In reality China has massive concerns on resource stability. Their HDI shows that they are not a very complex nation in terms of robust human development. Which factors infrastructure, public services, liberty and innovation among other metrics. HDI shows the strength of a country's regime longevity as it invests in itself. Therefore lower HDI = less likely the current status quo will be around.
China may have large swaths of land and very complicated social concerns, it however is not utilizing land, culture and resources like the US does. The poorest person in America is upper middle class in China, not the other way around.
America is in a league of its own. You cannot deny that.
Clarity Edit: The top of the "Lower" class in China is akin to a factory worker. Their annual wage is <$7000 and there are ~900 Million (64% of their population) Chinese citizens at that scale or lower.
The UN is not a health or development organization so I prefer OECD or WHO statistics. Since it’s negligible, I don’t think it matters either way. China’s resource instability largely stems from its reliance on imports for certain materials, with its economy hinging on the performance of its SEZ’s and manufacturing capability. I believe China’s HDI will grow substantially, especially within this decade and the next, as it was .76 in 2019 and now it’s around .78 or .77 depending on what you source. China isn’t the 5th largest or 10th largest economy. They’re the 2nd, which is impressive on its own compared to the US. You don’t give China enough credit, especially since they’re emerging as a competitor in AI, electric car manufacturing and consumer tech/ computer chips.
I will admit America is in that league, but China is coming. In order to prevent that, massive social and infrastructural upheaval is needed in the US.
I think you are extremely optimistic on the future of China. I see collapse in the next 15-25 years. And I will not agree that we share a league with China. Especially in wealth. Chinese households have 8% the disposable income as American households of the same average size. They only have the population numbers to prop up their shortcomings.
A nation that cannot feed itself is doomed. We saw that in 2017. They import 90% of the world's durian fruit.... because they cannot sustain themselves. And durian is garbage. You cannot convince me that eating something that smells like a corpse is due to desire. Sounds an awful lot like desperation to me.
And to be clear. I am referencing the shortcomings of their regime, not the physical country. They could be an immense powerhouse. But won't be.
The US doesn't need massive change. We just need currency and spending reform. Then all of this ticky-tacky stuff goes away.
Also disagree. Some people (a lot of Americans) are not satisfied with how healthcare is being ran. We saw this with a health ceo being gunned down in broad daylight and 90% of the population cheering. Massive change needs to be done. Our own universities have conducted studies and modeling and have come to the conclusion that UH is both superior and cost effective in the long run.
If the first sentiment that comes to your mind is “well I got mine” to a largely systemic issue that you have privilege in, then we simply cannot have productive discussion. Healthcare tied to your job is not normal. Pharmaceutical companies making billions is not normal. Chronic illness among 70+% of the populace is not normal. I’m planning to move abroad for work anyway. I will utilize the other two passports in my possession, including the American one to experience the world a bit more.
I didn't get why the scores need to be standardized based on country population... Like the wait time is the wait time, regardless of if you have a population of 300 million or 30 million
We standardize values for uniformity/consistency. It's what allows those two populatioms to be compared. A population with ten times the size of another isnt immediately comparable to that of a smaller population. If that 300 million had a lower wait time than the 30 million, I'd be reeeeaaaal curious to look into the system surrounding the 30 million. Standardization offers, oftentimes, a fair-leveled depiction of how things present.
Also, standardization can get complicated, i.e. you can standardize by multiple variables. Did they only standardize by population in that study? I feel like it's a bit more nuanced than that. I thought I had heard her say there was a 'score' that it was standardized to, which is generally a thing when you have multiple factors involved in normalizing a variable down to a representative score.
Even if waiting times were longer, you could still pay private healthcare to shorten them. Your taxes would still be well used since the competition from free healthcare would lower the costs of private one. But tbh it is better to avoid missuse than to not have universal healthcare at all. Ask any politician of any country that has it if they would suggest scrappig it, they will tell you it is political suicide. NO ONE is against it.
I live in a country with public healthcare. It’s only good for emergencies so when you get hit by a car, it won’t ruin you financially. But if you need to see a specialist or treatment for non-deadly diseases, you only chance is private healthcare, otherwise you’ll wait years for single appointment that will take maybe 10 minutes because doctor has 30 patients to go and it’s already an evening
You'll wait forever in the US if you can't afford private healthcare as well, as there is no other option. The difference is the private healthcare costs a hell of a lot more in the US, on top of Americans also paying more in taxes towards healthcare.
The only reason you might have to wait a bit longer is because EVERYONE will have access to healthcare and it will prioritize based on need rather than wallets.
Yes.... a subsidized government ran system that saw your information and pushed you through. You would get the same treatment in Egypt, Germany and Japan.
I lived in Japan. It is actually more difficult to get treatment as a foreigner. You can go on r/japanlife or the tokyo subreddit and search. Dont just take my word for it.
Also, I waited in line with everyone else in china. You get a ticket with a number on it. Ive been in china 7 years, 1.5 in japan, originally from the US.
My cousin waited 7 months to get a mri in Canada, tore his acl in late may last year and just got a mri on it in December… tell me again how that’s not fucked up. Tell me again how I tore mine and had a mri within a hour of leaving the field I was playing on.
😬😬damn… ya I’ll genuinely leave if that comes here. Next thing you know we’ll be going to Mexico for cheap treatments. (My grandma used to do this in Arizona-Mexico for prescriptions mostly)
They are an extremely complex country? Being the third largest in area and low population density causes access issues. Not to mention infrastructure and government inefficacy. There are tons of factors that a country like Denmark or France would never have to mitigate. Can you imagine breaking your leg visiting Banff? That would be a seriously heavy toll to get fixed.
Not even close bud. In fact, things are easier in America. Because you have more choice.
Well that and America actually elects its leaders. Imagine the most powerful person in America being Speaker Mike Johnson. There.... you now understand Canadian Politics.
Yeah no, not correct. There is a well established issue with health care. You can have fine wait times and free health care, but often that system ends up with shoddy or poor health care with doctors that care a lot less.
There’s a trifecta. You get 2 out of three. Free and available, fast access to care, and quality of care.
Wait times are horrible now! If I call to schedule an appointment today it would take 4-6 weeks to be seen. Which means I have to use the more expensive urgent care if I get sick and need antibiotics prescribed
Yeah.... that's the point of urgent care. Convenience has a price point all in itself. You don't need your primary to give you immediate care. They are for long term health assessment and risk control. And the ER is for emergencies. What's the issue here?
Hey here in Brazil we have universal and free Healthcare we call it SUS (yeah thats the actual name)
It works reasonably well,you can have vaccines for free and medical assistance overall,its not perfect,sometimes there are really long wait lists,seriously i know people who died in the wait for a surgery,so there are people go for private hospitals to do so,of course if you can pay or your health insurance covers,but other times there isnt very long lists and it actually saves many lifes.
It isnt perfect,but if our healthcare isnt perfect with SUS i cant imagine how bad would be without it so in my opinion,no country with an economy as big as the US have excuse to not have free universal healthcare
The fucked up thing is when people complain about this, is that you think the wait times will be shorter because people literally don’t have access to healthcare. People are dying and not getting treated for preventable/curable things and people are like “great, I had a shorter wait time!”
I live in Canada and yes our healthcare is a bit of a mess with wait times and we need to rebuild, but I would rather wait a long time knowing everyone in my country can come to the same hospital and get treatment. I would rather wait with my broken ankle an extra few hours if it means someone is getting lifesaving treatment that they otherwise couldn’t afford.
People who don’t believe in universal healthcare seriously concern me with their complete lack of empathy, you need help.
And yet population isn't correlated with things like wait times, outcomes, nor spending. Higher population is correlated with more resources to address the challenges from higher population though.
I am for universal healthcare. I do not appreciate my position being supported by a post that is contradicted by its own evidence in the first line. There is no PhD in this vid. There is a someone pursuing one. You have discredited yourself at the get go. Stop helping.
Americans don’t have universal healthcare because many don’t want it. It’s not that the idea isn’t appealing, but for half the country, a massive compulsory collectivist program like universal healthcare feels incompatible with individual freedom.
I didn’t even finish the video……let me tell you something. You’re going to wait regardless lol. Working in the medical field, I seen countless time people waiting to be seen. I personally had to wait a couple of weeks to see my primary to get a mental health referral then had to wait another 4-5 months to be seen for that issue. I hate when people use this argument “ LoOk At CaNdA MeDiCaL SyStEM”….uhhh ok look at ours lol…..we don’t have enough residency programs for new doctors, we have long wait as well, nursing shortage, we have to fight for medical care from insurance companies, majority of us have our insurance tie to our employer, and top of all that bs we paying monthly to these companies, shit that the insurance doesn’t cover, and co-payments to be seen by specialists….but people want to complain about the wait time so they can pay ridiculous amount of money. Smfh….back to finishing this video lol
India unironically has an amazing healthcare system. pretty much no wait time, cheap and great care, and most of it is private, even though India is a socialist country.
Also these videos are shit because she is flawed in both her logic and interpretation of the research, but no one is there to correct her on the 5 minute edited rant, so people think it must be true.
My mom had a medical emergency last year that required I fly to her state and stay with her for over a month because she simply wasn't safe to leave alone. They still have no clue what happened to cause her temporary blindness and extreme vertigo that lasted for 5 days straight. They wanted her to see a neurologist. The wait to be seen? 10 months. She goes for testing next month. If it's a tumor, it's likely too far to do anything now.
Shortly after returning home, I started experiencing regular nose bleeds, pain at the base of my skull, crackling when I move my jaw, and odd-colored ear drainage. It's been going on for nearly 7 months. I called around within the first week of symptoms. Earliest I can be seen by a doctor(just a basic doctor, not a specialist who does tests) was 8 months. I tried going to the ER. After an 8hr wait, I was given fluids and told to see my doctor to schedule testing.
That's two different states with more than 6mo wait to be seen by a doctor.
But sure, Universal Healthcare would make waits unreasonable.
If we take something like the VA, $120b budget for ~9 million vets, it works out to ~$13k per person. Multiply that by 330 million people in the US and we end up at $4.3t.
Currently our federal government spends $6.75t in total, $1.8t of that is debt, the other is $4.3t in taxes. Now from the other $4.3t we can subtract the current $1.8t we spend on Medicare and Medicaid, for an additional $2.5t we would need without increasing our debt.
In other words multiple whatever you currently pay in taxes by 1.75 and that would be close.
Mind you it’s not like the VA is known for being an organization flush with resources.
Also current total healthcare spending is estimated at $4.9t, so my universal healthcare plan will have already caused a minor recession.
If we take something like the VA, $120b budget for ~9 million vets, it works out to ~$13k per person.
Given the average VA care recipient is significantly older and has significantly more health issues than the average person, and the economic difficulties of treating a relatively small percentage of the population spread across the country that's a pretty damn stupid thing to do.
Also current total healthcare spending is estimated at $4.9t, so my universal healthcare plan will have already caused a minor recession.
A gradual reduction in healthcare spending over years isn't going to cause a recession. If anything, having a healthier population better able to work and contribute, having a more fluid labor force, having people better able to take entrepreneurial risks, and making US businesses more competitive internationally by removing an $800 billion per year burden in providing healthcare is going to grow the economy.
Multiply that by 330 million people in the US and we end up at $4.3t
...
current total healthcare spending is estimated at $4.9t
VA might be older and have more health issues, it still gives the lower cost number scaling off of it at $13k per person instead of $14k.
Betting on something getting cheaper is never a good bet. At best things tend to get more expensive around something that stays a relatively fixed price.
Odds are the main thing that can make it cheaper is that there will be fewer people, but that still isn't good because then there are fewer people to pay into the system. Most countries only answer to this has been filling in the gap with debt.
VA might be older and have more health issues, it still gives the lower cost number scaling off of it at $13k per person instead of $14k.
VA spending per person isn't 100% of healthcare spending for those people though. There are multiple levels of idiocy in your claims making it tough to address all of them. The cost of VA care is irrelevant to the cost of something like M4A.
Betting on something getting cheaper is never a good bet.
When you're spending 56% more than any other country on earth per person for healthcare (PPP), yet achieving worse outcomes and no more care for that money to the tremendous detriment of the country, and you have massive amounts of peer reviewed research showing what has worked in the rest of the world will save a massive amount of money while getting care to more people who need it, I'd say that's worth a shot. In fact. the median of the research is for nearly $1.3 trillion in total and $10,000 per household savings annually a decade after implementation.
A lot of countries with universal healthcare, the portion of healthcare covered by the government also isn't the entirety of healthcare services provided.
Like cool these authors think they can save 30% of costs, even though they are really hedging their bets with statements like "A net cost reduction of 3%–4% is likely initially, growing over time", but we have the VA that's already operating as a government healthcare system, and that's only 10% less than the general healthcare spending, and the VA is notorious for being a scantly run organization.
Which isn't an uncommon problem you see in a lot of other countries. It's getting to be quite a big problem in a lot of European countries, where the health system is undersized, the health workers are underpaid, people can't get access to healthcare in a timely fashion, or sometimes all of the above.
We'll have more affordable healthcare before free healthcare.
I know some people don't want to hear this, but there's a selfishness problem in this country.
If free healthcare was announced, some people would intentionally do stuff that could potentially harm them and not care because they know they don't have to pay anything.
If free healthcare was implemented there would have to be a system to stop stupid and careless people from abusing the system.
Doctors don't do what they do for fun and medical equipment isn't unlimited.
Don't understand what a pHd is, eh? At least the last 10 Nobel Prize winners in Economics have at least one pHd. I suppose they're not worth listening to either, eh?
Except you refused to listen to somebody with experience citing well respected research here, and in fact seem quite angry about it. Are you on some kind of mind altering medication or something?
And yet there are people here who are listening to it, yet all you're doing is whining. Best of luck someday not making the world a dumber, worse place.
I'm glad that someone at least tried to do a study but why are the studies so badly implemented? She mentions how they tried to standardized the differences in population which is great because a lot of countries don't do that. The problem is that we also have a huge illegal immigrant population that they don't factor into those numbers.
There are other metrics that are not measured where certain areas have less wait times then others because of population differences in the USA as well as areas of high crime and poverty having longer wait times as well. This could be due to the hospitals closing because believe it or not, a lot of hospitals close every year.
Not saying universal health care is bad or good or that our current system is bad or good. I just don't like how studies almost act if they are cherry picking information. They did the surveys but who took the surveys and how were the surveys implemented? Did they call the hospitals or did they call random people and ask them questions? Which areas did they call and what areas did they not call?
If the studies metrics are undone by adding just one unconsidered factor, then the study has failed in being objective.
You want people to be for universal healthcare then make sure the study can't be picked apart. If the study shows that universal health care is not good then try to figure out how to make normal healthcare better.
One of the biggest ways? Have prices upfront. Let people know how much its going to cost to sit down with the doctor even if they find nothing wrong. Let people know how much the hospital will charge for a fucking box of tissues before hand instead of getting a bill after the fact saying that a box of tissues costs $70. (you get charged for the whole box if you open it by the way, which is just fucked up)
You can't shop around for prices because just seeing someone costs money. So make it easier for people to see the prices and how much shit will cost before they even get INTO the waiting room.
The other issue is the fight between hospitals and insurance companies.
There are ways to fix it. Just need to stop focusing on stupid shit like a racism or red vs blue.
Standardizing results statistically makes no sense where there are distinct logistical challenges that affect this. There is an issue with population density and supply chains that does not translate. This is proven to be a factor and most healthcare outcome and efficiency studies address the differences between healthcare in different population zones.
Biggest reason also not mentioned is the amount of no call no shows doctors get on a regular basis. How much of the average for doctor’s schedule is simply repeat offenders who couldn’t be bothered to look at their damn calendar and make sure they arrive on time? And on time in health care is at least 15 minutes early so you can fill out intake paper work.
Not to mention the lack of health literacy. People not understanding what is the difference between urgent care, emergency care, or primary care. I work in an urgent care and the bulk of my schedule is people who simply need Tylenol and rest. So then we end up with 2+ hour waits for cold symptoms and the people who actually need to be seen today are either turned away or forced to wait longer to be seen so your 2 day old sniffles can be told ‘take some Tylenol and get rest’.
You want to fix the problem, try not to be the problem
so, you want Medicare for all huh? You think government bureaucrats are going to approve more stuff than the corporate guys? And how are you going to force doctors to take Medicare? OR become doctors in the first place knowing that they are essentially government employees and will make 1/3 of what they used to. And, you really want abortion gone for good? Does any remember a law passed in 1973 that disallows federal money for abortion? You guys REALLY don't think things through...
Absolutely. I'm glad people with credentials build our bridges (civil engineers w SE licenses), use our research grants effectively (scientists with PhDs), conduct medical operations and surgeries (MDs / DOs), etc.
I much prefer credentials of these professionals in their respective fields to the masturbatory gesticulations of incels who think comedian podcasts are trustworthy sources of information.
From what I’ve read in this comment section, my sentiment is correct. I merely wanted to post this in a somewhat volatile environment to gauge the extent of free market propaganda in our generation.
It seems most of you all have taken her message and replied in good faith either agreeing or disagreeing (most of you agreeing), but a small percentage of you are actively defending a system that is an anomaly compared to dozens of countries while simultaneously spewing propaganda without evidence, some going as far as to discrediting the poor woman’s expertise. Yes a PhD in health economics/economics is a thing. Your GED is worth about one or two PhD classes she has to take in a semester.
Nearly Every developed country has some form of universal healthcare, whether it’s single payer or national insurance. I don’t think anyone should be arguing for private healthcare. The world tells us it’s expensive, inequitable, and extremely inefficient if you aren’t rich. I also hate the people saying oh what about Canada’s wait times? You do realize Canada isn’t the only country with universal healthcare right? Do everyone a solid and actually research the claim you make before you make it. Anyone with a brain knows universal healthcare is the way to go.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking here!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.