Hacker News Reader

Comment by geezerjay | Hacker News Reader

You really should get the facts on how those systems actually operate.

I'm currently living in an european country that has a national health service that supposedly ticks all the socialist talking points, including free (in theory) access to emergency care, but not only is the service largely inoperational with year-long waiting periods for surgeries, including cancer treatments, but also has a disgruntle workforce who systematically complains they are underpaid and overworked.

The situation is so appalingly bad that the national health service even routes patients to private hospitals and clinics, ending up paying a hefty bill for the services they were supposed to provide in-house but are largely unable to provide.

View on HN

While I understand your point, I don't know if it could be distilled that succinctly. I have friends who have worked in European countries with universal healthcare that was sub-standard by a U.S. perspective. What I'm curious about is whether this is directly attributable to the healthcare system structure or if it's more causally related to other factors like GDP, access to a trained workforce, or basic infrastructure. Meaning, if we look at two very similar countries that happen to have different healthcare systems would the same effect you outlined still hold?

While I also come from a country like the one you described, there is a very simple fact that cannot be ignored - when my dad got cancer 8 years ago, every single one of his operations and all the drugs(including incredibly expensive Glivec) were 100% free. He was even reimbursed for the cost of travelling to the hospital for his monthly check-up.

If he had the same disease in US, he would die much earlier than he did, I'm 100% certain of it, because quite simply there is no way he could afford the treatment or the premiums that americans are paying for their healthcare. Even when he was sick enough that he couldn't work anymore, he was still 100% covered and didn't have to pay anything for anything ever.

My point is - there are people in our countries who are probably dying because they have to wait months to be seen by someone. True. But there are also people in US who are dying because they cannot afford the treatment they need. I feel like this is far worse than the first situation - after all, we only have a finite number of doctors, a finite amount of hospitals, and limited capacity to add more(for reasons other than financial too). But US is the richest country in the world - and its citizens die because they cannot afford cancer drugs? That's abhorrent.

You have gone from a hypothetical to concluding that people in the US die because they can't afford cancer drugs.

If your dad was over 65, he would be on Medicare. If he was younger than 65 and impoverished (income between 0 - ~150% of poverty level) he would be on Medicaid or another state plan for low income people. If he's above 150% of poverty level he probably has health insurance available at work or thru ACA. In fact is legally obligated to.

It's entirely possible to have health coverage and still be financially ruined by a health emergency due to deductibles and pre-existing condition loopholes.

Yet some people believe going to a freer market route would dramatically decrease costs

How many of your fellow citizens declare bankruptcy because of of their medical expenses, debts?

That's definitely rising as can be seen in recent research of the topic: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/05/business/bankruptcy-older...

Medical expenses, unlike credit card debt or student loans, can still be discharged through bankruptcy. For lower income elderly folks, that coupled with low paying job opportunities usually leads to disaster.

And yet, it's the US where 25 year-olds die of diabetes [1]. Not the "socialist hellholes".

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shane-patrick-boyle-died-a...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com