Comment by wisty | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wisty | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That's debatable. Is it the tax (as a proportion of GDP), OH&S regulations, other work regulations (i.e. ease of hiring and firing), immigration policy, education system, red-tape for businesses, pump-priming (from lucrative defense contracts), resources (good soil, some oil, lots of mines), federal-state-local structure, the number of states (which means other states can cherry-pick regulations that work from their neighbors), or what?

As I see it, the US spends a fortune on health, and gets a dodgy system. It's not quite the caricature Michael Moore paints, but he doesn't seem too far from the mark. Whether that is funded by companies (health benefits for employees - more red tape than in countries with universal health) or by individuals (which lowers individual risk tolerance) is immaterial. Public health works better than private health, according to all the numbers I've seen.

> As I see it, the US spends a fortune on health, and gets a dodgy system.

Too true. One of my favorite infographics regarding health care: http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/cliff-kuang/design-innovatio...

We see doctors less, spend more than twice the average anyway, and have below average life expectancy.

> We see doctors less, spend more than twice the average anyway, and have below average life expectancy.

And we have a very different population. Obesity is only the most obvious example. And no, healthcare doesn't address obesity, even if your argument requires that it do so.

And we spend more on end-of-life. Unless govt death panels are going to be more frugal than private ones, that cost-differential will persist.

And we pay for a huge fraction of the world's drug development. Are you planning to cut back there?

Well over $150B of existing medicare/medicaid spending is fraudulent, which is significantly more than the "excess overhead and profits" of private insurance. Will that go up or down?

I agree with all your explicit points, and I realize that graph is a very crude indicator.

Also, I agree with the implicit point I think you are making, which is that this reform really does nothing to address these issues. (Although I would also say that I'm fine paying for the drug development. We shouldn't stop doing something that benefits us just because others can take advantage.)

So yeah, I really don't have a rebuttal because I agree with you. I wanted much more out of reform, but at this point I'm happy with anything that might get us a bit closer, especially if it makes it easier to reform in the future (which may be wishful thinking).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com