Moreover, I personally don’t have confidence in their ability to make those kinds of decisions, and I believe the abysmal performance of the NHS supports my view.
I certainly agree that central authorities can be better. But that's kind of a truism.
What alternative options do you have in mind? Admittedly I'm short on alternative ideas.
But if you insist upon perfect equality of health care access, I guess it can't be. Some central authority has to decide if anyone is allowed to treat you, regardless of what you've saved for the eventuality.
Perhaps that’s part of my developing thought on the matter: the public system paid by tax dollars should be equitable to all. But by all means, take your credit card to Pepsi Presents: For Profit Medical Centre and get a full work up.
China tried socializing food production, and it worked terribly. Production tripled when they re-privatized it and let farmers grow for themselves. People do a better job when they get to keep the rewards.
US health care isn't capitalist in this sense of rewarding a good job. It's the worst of both worlds: a system whose regulations are superbly adapted to optimize profit for the administrative class at the expense of both doctors and patients.
Some Americans think that the US Healthcare way is “the right way but Slightly Off-Track(tm)” and will not be suaded.
You asked a direct question, though, to what extent do social services exist.
Social services exist to ensure that we all have a decent foundation on which to conduct our business of living.
For some that will be as you say, providing basic food and housing. In fact in Sweden food is given to children for free in school; however in the UK it is only poor students that get it.
In Sweden water is free, in the UK it’s charged but it’s a utility that cannot be turned off.
Everyone draws the line somewhere else, but the basis is meant to be that we have a solid foundation.
Unexpected medical expenses shouldn’t decimate a household economy for a decade, it doesn’t matter how unprepared the household is. But this is my personal feeling.
In addition: tying health insurance to employment and having at-will working conditions strikes me as ensuring compliance/docility in the work place, which I don’t believe in.
"Please don't post shallow dismissals" - HN Guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Some Americans think that the US Healthcare way is “the right way but Slightly Off-Track(tm)” and will not be suaded.
"Be kind. Don't be snarky... Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." - HN Guidelines
2) it's not unkind to point out the truth, it's not possible to persuade people that the American healthcare system has a fundamental architectural problem, they believe wholeheartedly that it would work if it wasn't for the <insert consequential factor here>
it's not an intellectually honest conversation, it's shallow, everyone has dug in. it's boring.
It could be that this style of engagement is why you're bored. It does seem boring to talk to people without actually talking to them.
That's the relation, that's why it's boring, because you'll never truly argue the point or consider another perspective. You can't be persuaded, and neither can I, reasonably.
So, what's the point.
Go live in your squalid hole and I'll go live in mine and lets not pretend that either of us aren't brainwashed in some way, because there's no possible way that we're going to conclude this discussion that I keep seeing repeated on every public forum ad infinitum.
it's fucking exhausting.
Unless either of you are willing to engage in intellectually honest, curious conversation then you should honestly just keep your gob shut.
Flame wars help nothing, rehashing this helps nothing. We're walking in circles, save your energy, I'm wasting mine in an effort to save yours in future.
You're welcome.
I would love to have an open and inquisitive conversation. I am open-minded about how we structure our system. There are many considerations, and costs and benefits to any method. I do not think socialized or public structures are bad or inferior to private ones.
I do think it helps for people to be rewarded for their labor, but it isn't the only consideration, and it can be worked out in a range of systems.
(I believe if you knock on someone's door and ask for water you can't say no to that person - if within reason - and there are usually lots of public/free places to get water to drink)
Administration bloat is a problem everywhere, however I don't think that is the reason for or against national Healthcare.
It almost certainly would be possible to use MRI for screening, but the impact would be a reduction in availability and a higher cost.
That’s absolutely fine. You’re free to spend your money on preventative healthcare that’s been determined to fail a cost benefit test. Organizations that have to save as many lives as possible or prolong healthspan as long as possible within a limited budget must make decisions somehow.
Any sort of treatment is invasive. Almost all form of medical treatment has side effects and risks.
Finding out you have "cancer" is traumatic and extremely emotional, though breast cancer is one of the most survivable (in part because, well, everyone loves boobs. Prostate cancer, on the other hand...)
Putting these tools in the hands of medical professionals is one thing. Putting them in the hands of the general public is beyond irresponsible.
People physically assaulted doctors and nurses for not being given ivermectin; imagine how insufferable people will get when some website examined their mammogram and said they have cancer.
Extremely weird take. Not least because the survival rates for breast cancer and prostate cancer are very similar.
and it's completely ridiculous why there isn't a public/government project to do this.