Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

imafraidofmuricans t1_j72fp93 wrote

What a weird comment. Nobody claimed it was perfect. Every model does not have its pros and cons, that's just objectively false.

0

WanderingPickles t1_j72n7lb wrote

It isn’t that weird. There are substantial numbers of folks who will defend one model over another to the nth degree. It is weird.

Additionally, it is not “objectively false” that every model has pros and cons. As the old saying goes, “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” There is always a cost associated with what we do and what we do not do. Opportunity costs, economic, fixed, variable, environmental costs. Always a cost.

When it comes to healthcare there are costs. One model could be that 100% of everything is always covered, in full. And that the government funds and hires enough docs, nurses, specialists, etc. to ensure that there are no wait times, that there are enough everything for every eventuality. That simply is not realistic.

For example, I worked for a government run entity where basically everything was covered. We had a patient who was gone. Never ever going to wake up, the only “movement” was the result of nerve death causing spasming. But the machines kept oxygen in the blood, kept blood circulating, took over from the kidneys, etc. All machines. The wife knew what needed to be done but one of the kids was convinced his dad was going to come back hale and hearty. It costs millions and millions to prolong this agony. It was traumatic for everyone involved including our staff.

I used to live in Europe and dealt with socialized medicine. Certain things were great. In other instances, it was mystifying how certain kinds of imaging (MRIs for example) which are routine in the US are exceptional over there. Or how imaging is offered only certain days of the week; good luck if you have a broken leg, the X-ray tech will be here Tuesday (that’s a real thing that happened too).

Likewise, a model dependent upon employer provided insurance (or really employer subsidized/cost sharing) isn’t particularly perfect either.

Another example; my son was born with a particularly serious heart condition. His mom was hospitalized prior to the birth because she was likewise “circling the drain.” Altogether it cost ~$2 million in the first six months for our son and hundreds of thousands for her. Insurance covered most of it but I was still having to figure out how to pay the deductible and “out of pocket maximums” and premiums. Half of my income before taxes was going towards some healthcare related thing. And I made good money. Half of every dollar. Before rent, food, taxes, gas, everything.

Even after that first year junior has continued with his medical checkups. While he had his surgical repair and is otherwise healthy, just the observational checkups rack up the dollars. It is also worth noting that his particular heart condition would not have been covered in most parts of the world including Europe or Canada. He would have been either euthanized or simply made comfortable and allowed to die. He is fine now and smart as a whip.

And when I was responsible for her (she ended up developing an uncommon illness that required ~$100k in treatment every month in perpetuity) I was still shelling out vast sums. It was untenable. I have a couple advanced degrees, made a good wage, paid my taxes, lived right and couldn’t afford rent or food on my own.

The point is, no system is perfect. There are always pros and cons. There are benefits and costs. I am fortunate enough that I have personal experience with several of the most financially flush healthcare models on the planet. I cannot say that one is better than the other, just that both can be maddeningly frustrating, limiting, and difficult to use. And also incredibly helpful in their own ways.

1

kUr4m4 t1_j72voox wrote

How can you in good conscious say that one is not better than the other. It just baffles me.

2

WanderingPickles t1_j72zegi wrote

Because I have dealt with both.

Broadly speaking I can’t really say which one is better than the other.

Personally speaking, my son is alive and well. So my personal vote goes to the American system. I would work two jobs again and again if it meant he had life.

−1

kUr4m4 t1_j72zvqb wrote

You dealt with both but under your specific conditions. Factually speaking, socialized healthcare is simply more cost-effective and results in a better outcome for the general population than private healthcare. Study after study comes up with the same result. It's not a matter of opinion as to which system is better for the greater portion of the population.

2

WanderingPickles t1_j732udc wrote

It also helps that most socialized medicine nations are much more conducive to healthy living.

Those quaint, beautiful, amazing walkable cities, towns and villages in Europe are largely the result of their being built when feet were the primary mode of travel. Fun fact; the much vaunted German Army of WWII primarily walked into combat and its heavy equipment (artillery) was horse drawn.

It is one thing I really miss living back in the US. Here I have to get in the car to go to a store. Any store. For anything. It is bonkers. I went from walking 6-9 miles a day to a fraction of that. I have to be intentional about exercise; dedicating large portions of my time to the achingly boring and tedious exercise of… exercise. Blech.

−1