Split off discussion of differences in healthcare systems

[taimen]

Storker, don't worry, you won already on page 1 of this _discussion_....
The prescence of private cancer clinics in a country which officially has your ideal single payer universal public heathcare is better proof for my case than any statistics.
Regarding the problems in finnish healthcare you find a lot of discussion online in Swedish which you probably can read more fluently than I. We just went into a parlamentary crisis because of inability to reform the healthcare.
What I was trying to say is that when public healthcare runs out of money, they start to refuse treatments. And they do that in malicious ways like limiting access to primary care, which results in limited access to specialist care. In the end you don't have a greedy insurance company to blame, but the result is exactly the same.
I am not trying to say this happens in Norway, because as far as I know it doesn't.

 

[taimen]

If you can't document your claim, it's just that. A claim. Without substance.

I doubt there is a citation that satisfies you, as health insurances are not centralized business which would provide data to outsiders.
But every single hit on the first page of google results for refusals are testimonials of refused experimental therapies.
The article below is heartbreaking, but not a single case of proton therapy is covered by public healthcare in my country. Just to put things into perspective.

When insurance wouldn't pay, parents funded cancer patient's $95,000 lifesaving treatment - CNN

 

[RayfromTX]

The definition of success is the problem. Corporations define it by profits, stock prices and CEO bonuses. Governments define it by coverage rates, health outcomes and cost to the overall economy. I like the way the government defines it in this case. I don't feel this way about most of the parts of the economy but when it comes to healthcare, profits and stock value don't define success for me.

 

[Storker]

The prescence of private cancer clinics in a country which officially has your ideal single payer universal public heathcare

You're being disingenuous again. I've never claimed that our - or anybody else's - single payer system is neither ideal nor perfect. Far from it. But like capitalism, it's the worst system, except for all the others.

when public healthcare runs out of money, they start to refuse treatments.

In any system, there are limited resources and there has to be some kind of triage. In single-payer systems, it's based on need, resource availability and proven effect. In private insurance-based systems it's based on coverage, i.e. socioeconomic status. I know what I prefer.

And AFAIK, if your primary health provider doesn't provide the services you want, there are very few - if any - industrialized countries where you can't pay up and get what you want.

 

[taimen]

And AFAIK, if your primary health provider doesn't provide the services you want, there are very few - if any - industrialized countries where you can't pay up and get what you want.

Back to square one. That is a problem with high taxes. In only very few systems you can flexibly "pay up" some extra to get what you need.
More commonly you are charged high taxes, get poor service and have to pay up full price for what you need. With high tax rates that becomes prohibitively expensive for the consumer.

Once again you fail to recognize the fact that there are insurance based systems with universal coverage, that still leave room for private providers and most importantly freedom of choice for consumers.

 

[Storker]

That is a problem with high taxes.

That is a problem with high wage disparaty. Only with a significantly higher than average socioeconomic status you can flexibly "pay up" some extra to get what you need.

So, the peons are screwed one way or another. I guess that isn't your problem. Me, I find that immoral. Even if I'm in the bracket that allows me to pay up if I deem it necessary.

 

[taimen]

That is a problem with high wage disparaty. Only with a significantly higher than average socioeconomic status you can flexibly "pay up" some extra to get what you need.

Intentional misunderstanding? Flexible would mean that a private provider gets subsidies for doing the job which public one didn't provide. The simplest form of this is of course called an insurance, which can be private or public/regulated (typical German system).
2/3rd of finnish families with children in major cities are not "significantly above average socioeconomic status", still they choose to buy a private health insurance for their children because they don't get the public healthcare they need (and pay for in taxes). That fraction is also so high that it cannot be just misconception or going after luxyry.
This is the problem of tax funded provider monopoly. It's incentives are in creating budget savings instead of treating people. Once the services start degrading, there are weak mechanisms to correct it. We probably agree that a system where people pay taxes for universal healthcare, and still a major fraction need a private insurance on top of that is not how it should be.
You have a lot of trust in your system, I have seen ours go corrupt. That is why I don't believe in it anymore.

 

[Storker]

Intentional misunderstanding?

Not at all. I'm only relating to what you actually write.

2/3rd of finnish families with children in major cities are not "significantly above average socioeconomic status", still they choose to buy a private health insurance for their children because they don't get the public healthcare they need (and pay for in taxes). That fraction is also so high that it cannot be just misconception or going after luxyry.

Don't blame the failings of your country's (possibly failed) implementation on the core fundamentals. No matter how you twist it, it's a statistical fact that a private insurance-based healthcare system delivers less health per $ - or € - than what most single-payer system do. It's evident even on Wikipedia.

 

[taimen]

We discussed that already and when definition of healthcare is few hard public health endpoints it is true.
They usually don't take into account things like lost workdays due to delayed diagnosis and treatment or poor rehabilitation etc. where other systems excel.
Those same measures btw reward you royally for refusing the 3rd round of expensive cancer treatments. High €/qaly but still most of us think it is inhumane (no citation).

 

[BRT]

I'd like to see a cite for that.

Norwegian scientist comes to Boston for work, finds cancer treatment
EU vs US Cancer Care: You Get What You Pay For