Hacker News Reader

Comment by guylhem | Hacker News Reader

Such as increasing our level of technology so that the next generation will be better off, which is what every generation did until we got the idea that putting a bigger and bigger chuck of the GDP on healthcare each year was a bright idea. Over 10% it is not sustainable. It has to stop growing.

If it was used to develop life changing technologies for the whole human species such as whole brain emulation, space colonization etc- why not. At the moment is it just about making us more comfortable.

A temporary high quality of life indeed, at the expense of the future. Not a bright idea.

View on HN

You aren't consistent in the point you are trying to make, which lends me to believe you believe in your side beyond reason. People have stated that universal health care has and does work in other countries.

Check out Australia's economy, and it's healthcare system. Admittedly it's scale is tiny in comparison to a U.S and there is a valid discussion of how universal health care scales (i.e is it linear, etc). But evidence already shows it works, so I don't see any point in further trying to convince you.

You might want to check out this though: http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

It seems that is what is happening here.

> you believe in your side beyond reason

I don't believe in anything. Maybe universal healthcare will be possible some day, and even a good thing. Presently, in the US, it's a really bad idea.

Australia is the token example of what I said above- the bill for its social system is footed by immigrants, to which some bright bulbs think removing coverage would be another bright idea.

The best solution to reduce costs? Remove all the legal cruft - including medical boards which create monopolies in labor. Leave maybe only the FDA to evaluate drugs. Let the market sort out the rest - ie deregulate.

Australia is the token example of what I said above- the bill for its social system is footed by immigrants, to which some bright bulbs think removing coverage would be another bright idea.

Um... what? I'm Australian and have a pretty good idea of the funding of our healthcare system. Can you please explain in better detail how it mooches off our immigration?

Also, can you please cite some references showing folks that want to remove coverage from immigrants being sensible economists rather than fringe racists?

It seems to me that you're just inventing things out of whole cloth at this point.

I'm not australian so I can't say for sure what's happening down there, but the situation seems very much like France.

In Europe, and especially in France, many people share the belief that immigration is causing problems to the healthcare system. Whether they are economists or fringe racists does not matter if they manage to get enough votes.

I don't know how frequent racism is in Australia when compared to France - after reading about the riots in the press, along with this recent article which featured a poll, showing 83% thought racism was prevalent I thought it was "very much alive". http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/racism-very-much-a...

Maybe the press and the polls are inventing things, and my comparison with France is not valid- but since we were talking about Australia, it seemed quite apropos.

EDIT: Volpe, please reread the parent comment. The problem is that western countries with diversity and immigration programs are also the ones with universal healthcare, and that there's a trend of resentment against other groups in these countries (quite related !!) that apparently conflict with the basic idea of social spending, and thus universal healthcare.

I've made my prediction - that countries with low (or no) growth will either reduce (or maintain low) their diversity and increase social spending, or increase diversity while decreasing social spending.

I'll be watching the situation in Europe and North America to see if these predictions happen - using universal healthcare as a proxy to see how social spending evolves.

Australia and Canada could give interesting example since they run active immigration programs and enjoy a decent growth - while still harbouring this kind of resentment. I'd be curious to know if growth can be helpful against this trend, or if the trend is stronger than the benefits of growth and will keep developing.

The article you posted highlights a peculiarity of the Australian racism debate - most of it is countering the idea that there is no racism in Australia, which is nonsense. There is racism here, just as there is racism everywhere. And it's got nothing to do with social spending - the US harbours quite a lot of racism (much more openly than in Aus) and it hates social spending. Australians are so sensitive about the race issue that most will either say there is no racism or that we're the worst in the world, but the truth is that we have problems, but aren't that bad if you actually start comparing to other countries. We certainly have nothing like France's actual laws on books that single out muslims.

But back to the meat of the question, you said this: Australia is the token example of what I said above- the bill for its social system is footed by immigrants. How are the immigrants footing the bill? From what you've said above, they're draining the system, not funding it ('causing problems')

Also, on the while still harbouring this kind of resentment bit - There is not a country in the world that doesn't have a racism problem nor a population segment that resents foreigners.

So I'll paraphrase what you just wrote:

France is having some problems that (i think) support my case, and I saw that Australia has some unrelated racism issue, so I concluded that France's healthcare system and Australia's healthcare system are the same.

Do you recall my earlier point about you being 'beyond reason' you are just making wild guesses at things, and cherry picking data to support your factually incorrect stance.

If you truly believe the market is the best way to sort it out, why not let the government compete? Have a single-payer system and let people opt-in. Also, repeal the laws that currently prohibit the government from negotiating drug prices. In a free market, if I'm a major client, I have some leverage to get preferential rates. Then, I'd be all for the market sorting it out. Would you support something like that? My guess is not, which means you aren't really arguing for deregulation, but for a different kind of regulation.

The government can not "compete" with the free market - because it foots the bill with tax money.

One or more non-profits OTOH? For sure I would agree - and if they can get leverage and get preferential rates, good for them.

Seriously? You feel confident enough to evaluate the qualifications of the 'doctor' you've just gone to see about the potentially life-threatening bulge on the side of your neck, which he dismisses as just "an enlarged lymph node, no way its Non-Hodgkins lymphoma", which if caught early enough is totally treatable but if you wait too long is fatal? You really feel qualified to do that?

> the bill for its social system is footed by immigrants

Umm... except they are covered as well... so how does that work?

Skipping over the difficulties of implementing universal health care for the moment -- the thing I like best about it is that it drastically simplifies an entire category of "stuff I hate that keeps me up at night".

If "but what happens if I get sick" is no longer a large factor in questions like "should I start this business", people are freer to throw themselves into developing the kind of technology you're talking about.

I've literally spent months of my life dealing with the details of arranging and paying for healthcare for myself and my family -- including time worrying about "but if X happens, how will I pay for it?" It's one of the main stresses in my life, and it very obviously costs me in productivity.

Hm; hope this is coherent; I'm out of time. :(

You are quite coherent and this is IMHO the only case where healthcare could be considered an investment - so that it doesn't prevent people from starting a business.

Not sure it is enough by itself to support a universal healthcare ideal, but this a very valid reason - along with easy to treat diseases when they are caught early on.

Right, preventative care, and not just starting businesses -- it stops people from doing all kinds of good things.

Creating art or writing novels, going back to school, moving across the country, working for startups (not just starting them), having kids (or adopting, or taking a leave of absence to help raise kids)... there are lots more things that could go on that list.

Not all of those things equal "more money to the government". Some are "quality of life" sort of things; some add cultural value; etc.. But having a safety net for health issues fixes a lot of problems even for people who won't ever really need it (but can't know that for sure...), and is a sort of economic equalizing factor that I like more than taking more money from rich people and giving it to poor people.

I was trying to figure out what was bugging me about the line I quoted of yours and figured it out - you call a healthcare visit a 'claim' rather than a 'visit' or 'consult' or whatever. I worked in a hospital for four years and never heard of any malingerer referred to as an 'overclaimer'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com