Hacker News Reader

Comment by motters | Hacker News Reader

Don't let anyone tell you that universal health care is "not viable", especially in one of the world's wealthiest countries. Such statements are really just political manoeuvrings of a disreputable kind.

In the UK universal health care has been viable since the NHS was founded over half a century ago. There is always controversy over exactly what services are available where, but at least everyone has access to it.

View on HN

I'm not sure you're considering all sides to the universal healthcare issues. The United States contributes the most money of any country by far toward medical research (close to 10x of what the UK contributes). The benefit derived from that is that countries like the UK get all the benefits of that expenditure without having to make that expenditure. So what you get is a lopsided benefit in non-US countries. This creates free riding.

So what happens is that as other countries free ride the United State's research, the US would have to not only foot hte bill for research and development (of which it is the biggest contribute in the world), but they would also have the bill for the fruits of that research - ie: the actual healthcare services and machines require to deliver those services. The United States doesn't get to pay a single bill and get great universal health care, it effectively pays twice for care while other countries pay once.

The GDP of the US is about 7x the GDP of the UK. So the UK isn't freeloading.

I'm also willing to bet the UK spends their medical research dollars more efficiently. In the States, big Pharma researches ways to make money. Elsewhere, research is done mostly by universities & hospitals, who are more interested in fame than fortune.

Not only is it free riding because the UK isn't spending a proportional amount of their GDP, but it could also be considered free riding because the quantity of research by the UK isn't the same; size notwithstanding.

But you're next line is absolutely baseless. What makes you think the UK spends their research dollars more efficiently? I'd love to hear even a single reason.

While you're thinking, here are some breakdowns of spending: US: 70.1% of spending is by private industry, 13.6 academic, 12.2 government.

UK: 65.7 private industry, 21.4 academic, 9.7 government.

I'd say they look much closer than you would have people believe.

The problem is that we're in debt, and there's no one to pay for it, especially with the costs of healthcare increasing, rather than decreasing, as they should when technology improves.

The "no one to pay for it" argument doesn't seem to be uniformly applied to to various highly expensive military adventures.

I agree, but we're printing money and borrowing from everyone willing to lend us money in order to pay for those expenses. I'm not saying they are necessary, but going 2x further into debt isn't a logical solution.

You are making an assumption that an American national health care system necessarily means that the U.S. would spend more money on health care than it currently does. Do you have evidence for this?

The U.S. spends about 16% GDP on health care and this is, by a large margin, the most spent by any rich nation on health care. I think it is hard to argue that a national health care system for the U.S. must inevitably cost more than what is currently spent in the U.S. for health care when every national health care system in the world costs less than what we currently spend.

What you want to take the second Porsche away from the dentists? Killing the American Dream and all.

well nobody says we have to go 2x in debt to pay for healthcare, we just have to stop spending cash on nation building and we'll have enough for ourselves. Of course this probably means less money "defending the border" and keeping the country safe from terrorists, but at least we'll be able to feed ourselves.

That puts us back at break even, maybe...

It doesn't pay for healthcare. Look, I'm not saying we don't need reform, but we can't just flip a magic switch and make it so.

We do spend more on healthcare than any other country, it's just that we also have more lawsuits than any other country -- it's what keeps costs high unfortunately. If we weren't allowed to sue doctors, we could probably have cheaper healthcare.

My grandmother died due to improper surgery procedures in canada but we couldn't bring a suit against the doctor. I'm sure if she died in the USA under the same circumstances, we would be able to successfully sue the hospital for negligence.

Have a look at the diagram under the heading "History of National Debt".

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/uk-economy/uk-national-deb...

The British welfare state, including the National Health Service, was created around 1948 at the height of Britain's debt.

Arguments along the lines of "we're in debt" don't really seem to make sense.

There is always controversy over exactly what services are available where, but at least everyone has access to it.

This is a pretty confusing statement. What does it mean for everyone to have access to a service that isn't available?

In rich countries, for the most part, everyone has access to food. Most don't have the means to buy expensive caviar though. In countries with national health care systems everyone has access to basic care. Not all high tech services are available to everyone though.

I think the point is that everyone gets 85% of what they would hope for from a health service, as opposed to a system where only 85% of people have any health service at all.

There's controversy for grey areas, like what kind of aesthetic surgery is to be subsidised. Everyone gets necessary treatment, always, as is normal in a civilised country.

Universal health without universal control?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com