Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Universal Healthcare

APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 6:34:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I was curious to see whether countries with "universal" healthcare had a better standard, so I ran the data through a spreadsheet and came up with the following results:

Countries ranked 1 to 190, with 1 being the best and 190 being the worst.

Countries with Universal Healthcare:

Mean rank = 28.03
Standard Deviation = 42.53
Median rank = 50 (Malaysia)
IQR = 64
No Outliers
Highest rank = 1 (France)
Lowest rank = 175 (South Africa)

Countries without Universal Healthcare:

Mean rank = 67.47
Standard Deviation = 70.84
Median rank = 133 (Sao Tome and Principe)
IQR = 67
No Outliers
Highest rank = 24 (Cyprus)
Lowest rank = 190 (Burma)

There seems to be a positive relationship between having Universal Healthcare and having a good standard of healthcare. However, as I have not controlled for other factors (wealth, technology, political system, etc.), I cannot definitely say that one causes the other (based on my analysis).

Raw data was obtained from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I have not double-checked the data to make sure it is accurate, as I didn't have the time. Feel free to follow it up yourself if you want.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 7:45:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 6:34:37 AM, APB wrote:
I was curious to see whether countries with "universal" healthcare had a better standard, so I ran the data through a spreadsheet and came up with the following results:

Countries ranked 1 to 190, with 1 being the best and 190 being the worst.

Countries with Universal Healthcare:

Mean rank = 28.03
Standard Deviation = 42.53
Median rank = 50 (Malaysia)
IQR = 64
No Outliers
Highest rank = 1 (France)
Lowest rank = 175 (South Africa)

Countries without Universal Healthcare:

Mean rank = 67.47
Standard Deviation = 70.84
Median rank = 133 (Sao Tome and Principe)
IQR = 67
No Outliers
Highest rank = 24 (Cyprus)
Lowest rank = 190 (Burma)

There seems to be a positive relationship between having Universal Healthcare and having a good standard of healthcare. However, as I have not controlled for other factors (wealth, technology, political system, etc.), I cannot definitely say that one causes the other (based on my analysis).

Raw data was obtained from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I have not double-checked the data to make sure it is accurate, as I didn't have the time. Feel free to follow it up yourself if you want.

The standard deviation is huge in both cases.
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 10:54:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hey can anyone tell me how a Free market healthcare system would be better then universal or other types of healthcare? facts and evidence please, also opinions are great too, would just like clarification on this, i was going to make a thread but thought this would be a good place for it instead. Thanks for the thread.
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 11:28:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 10:54:36 AM, Izayah003 wrote:
Hey can anyone tell me how a Free market healthcare system would be better then universal or other types of healthcare? facts and evidence please, also opinions are great too, would just like clarification on this, i was going to make a thread but thought this would be a good place for it instead. Thanks for the thread.

Currently there's no free-market system in healthcare. The US system is hardly free market. However, it has been shown to do better in some indicators then other nations. For example, the US has better survival rates then other nations for cancer:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The theory for free-market healthcare is that as businesses compete with one another, they will try to keep their prices down. They will also try to come up with innovative solutions and try to make their business run more efficienct, thus increasing output, while minimizing input.

The evidence for prices going down can be seen in some less-regulated medical procedures, such as in cosmetic surgery and Lasik eye surgery:

http://www.ncpa.org...

http://abcnews.go.com...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 11:34:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 11:28:19 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Currently there's no free-market system in healthcare. The US system is hardly free market.

But it's more free market than universal health care, you would agree?
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 12:51:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hard to believe you wasted time doing this. The WHO ranking of health care systems has been debunked numerous times.

The WHO has great data, don't get me wrong. But, the ranking of HC systems is not data, it is a subjective interpretation of data. The WHO has great data, but they aren't very good at interpreting their own data.

But, let's put that aside for a second. You should also know that richer countries tend to have universal health care... and that is entirely because they are rich. UHC actually reduces national wealthy by requiring new taxes which create deadweight loss.

Things like life expectancy and infant mortality have all to do with culture and almost nothing to do with HC systems.

Anyways, we do know that market based systems work much better than socialized ones (Singapore is MUCH cheaper and better than the UK).

So, this was literally useless.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 2:35:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 12:51:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
Things like life expectancy and infant mortality have all to do with culture and almost nothing to do with HC systems.

Anyone who doesn't live to the ripe old age of 125 or so (the time at which VO2max, the maximum amount of oxygen your body is able to distribute to your cells, is insufficient to further sustain life in an otherwise healthy individual) died for a reason that isn't "natural causes" or "old age", but rather because of a medical condition. How well we are able to identify and deal with these conditions determines how long we will live. It doesn't matter how cultured you are, you need an actual doctor to cure diseases.

So, this was literally useless.

I could say the same thing about your unbacked, unsourced assertions.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 2:38:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 2:35:10 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/17/2013 12:51:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
Things like life expectancy and infant mortality have all to do with culture and almost nothing to do with HC systems.

Anyone who doesn't live to the ripe old age of 125 or so (the time at which VO2max, the maximum amount of oxygen your body is able to distribute to your cells, is insufficient to further sustain life in an otherwise healthy individual) died for a reason that isn't "natural causes" or "old age", but rather because of a medical condition. How well we are able to identify and deal with these conditions determines how long we will live. It doesn't matter how cultured you are, you need an actual doctor to cure diseases.

So, this was literally useless.

I could say the same thing about your unbacked, unsourced assertions.

Um. Would you please provide evidence that universal health care increases life expectancy?

And, by evidence, I don't mean "The USA doesn't have universal health care and has lower life expectancies in Europe".

I mean actual evidence that establishes causality. The BoP is on supporters of universal health care to show that it raises life expectancy. And, this BoP is not even close to having been met.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 2:47:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 11:28:19 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/17/2013 10:54:36 AM, Izayah003 wrote:
Hey can anyone tell me how a Free market healthcare system would be better then universal or other types of healthcare? facts and evidence please, also opinions are great too, would just like clarification on this, i was going to make a thread but thought this would be a good place for it instead. Thanks for the thread.

Currently there's no free-market system in healthcare. The US system is hardly free market. However, it has been shown to do better in some indicators then other nations. For example, the US has better survival rates then other nations for cancer:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The theory for free-market healthcare is that as businesses compete with one another, they will try to keep their prices down. They will also try to come up with innovative solutions and try to make their business run more efficienct, thus increasing output, while minimizing input.

The evidence for prices going down can be seen in some less-regulated medical procedures, such as in cosmetic surgery and Lasik eye surgery:

http://www.ncpa.org...

http://abcnews.go.com...

The problem with insurance as a good is that companies don't just have price and quality as a means of competition.

Say Insurance Company A and Company B have the exact same quality product and prices, and an equal number of citizens applies to each for coverage.

Company A can slaughter Company B by simply refusing to cover all patients whose probability of "cashing in" on insurance exceeds a certain amount.

Company B's "free market" move would then be to increase the amount of people who don't get coverage and so on until the vaunted "equilibrium" is reached.

A way to largely correct this market problem would be to make it so Company A and B can only use price discrimination instead of flatly rejecting to cover a family. This means A and B now have to compete with different sections for different sections of the population instead of simply excluding them. High-risk insurance pools an are example of how to offer coverage to people with extremely high risk of "cashing in" without being prohibitively costly.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 2:51:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 2:38:30 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 4/17/2013 2:35:10 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/17/2013 12:51:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
Things like life expectancy and infant mortality have all to do with culture and almost nothing to do with HC systems.

Anyone who doesn't live to the ripe old age of 125 or so (the time at which VO2max, the maximum amount of oxygen your body is able to distribute to your cells, is insufficient to further sustain life in an otherwise healthy individual) died for a reason that isn't "natural causes" or "old age", but rather because of a medical condition. How well we are able to identify and deal with these conditions determines how long we will live. It doesn't matter how cultured you are, you need an actual doctor to cure diseases.

So, this was literally useless.

I could say the same thing about your unbacked, unsourced assertions.


Um. Would you please provide evidence that universal health care increases life expectancy?

And, by evidence, I don't mean "The USA doesn't have universal health care and has lower life expectancies in Europe".

I mean actual evidence that establishes causality. The BoP is on supporters of universal health care to show that it raises life expectancy. And, this BoP is not even close to having been met.

You never said anything about universal health care in that statement. You said that life expectancy is mostly influenced by culture, which is an outright falsehood.

However, I would argue that having health care readily available to all would increase life expectancy on average by moving the lower part of the population to a higher standard of care. In addition, due to the nature of health care, it is hard to actually apply free market principles to it in a sane manner. A free market depends on competition to make quality go up and to make prices go down. If someone is in need of immediate medical care, they aren't going to go look on Yelp to find the best hospital around. They are going to go to the nearest hospital, since they won't have time to choose a nice one. Furthermore, while the worst thing that can happen in most sectors of the economy due to bad service is a dissatisfied customer, mistakes made in health care get people killed. There is no logical place for competition to exist, nor is there any safety for traditional entrepreneurship. The free market has no place here, since what would be the difference between success and failure is the difference between life and death.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 4:28:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 2:47:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/17/2013 11:28:19 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/17/2013 10:54:36 AM, Izayah003 wrote:
Hey can anyone tell me how a Free market healthcare system would be better then universal or other types of healthcare? facts and evidence please, also opinions are great too, would just like clarification on this, i was going to make a thread but thought this would be a good place for it instead. Thanks for the thread.

Currently there's no free-market system in healthcare. The US system is hardly free market. However, it has been shown to do better in some indicators then other nations. For example, the US has better survival rates then other nations for cancer:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The theory for free-market healthcare is that as businesses compete with one another, they will try to keep their prices down. They will also try to come up with innovative solutions and try to make their business run more efficienct, thus increasing output, while minimizing input.

The evidence for prices going down can be seen in some less-regulated medical procedures, such as in cosmetic surgery and Lasik eye surgery:

http://www.ncpa.org...

http://abcnews.go.com...

You explained it pretty well.

The problem with insurance as a good is that companies don't just have price and quality as a means of competition.

Say Insurance Company A and Company B have the exact same quality product and prices, and an equal number of citizens applies to each for coverage.

Company A can slaughter Company B by simply refusing to cover all patients whose probability of "cashing in" on insurance exceeds a certain amount.

Company B's "free market" move would then be to increase the amount of people who don't get coverage and so on until the vaunted "equilibrium" is reached.

A way to largely correct this market problem would be to make it so Company A and B can only use price discrimination instead of flatly rejecting to cover a family. This means A and B now have to compete with different sections for different sections of the population instead of simply excluding them. High-risk insurance pools an are example of how to offer coverage to people with extremely high risk of "cashing in" without being prohibitively costly.

High-risk insurance pools are a good idea. Making people with pre-existing conditions pay higher premiums is fair, because they have a higher risk.

One important idea is to allow Americans to buy health insurance across state lines. With more competition and consumer choice, costs will fall.

The average cost of health insurance for eHealthInsurance Customers gives us good reason for implementing such a policy. In New Jersey, health insurance generally cost about $4,080 a year. However, annual costs for a health care plan in Iowa was only about $1,200. [1]

Universal health care would nearly eliminate medical innovation and R&D -- because of price controls. This is why Canada and Europe relies so heavily on the United States [2].

With low reimbursement rates, there would be fewer doctors, and thus a greater shortage of medical professionals, i.e. rationing.

There are many other steps we could take as well, such as expanding the usage of health savings accounts; or reform Medicare like Paul Ryan/ Rand Paul have suggested.

A free market would make health care more affordable, while improving access to health care and its quality.

[1] The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care", By Dr. Gratzer, 96
[2] http://www.independent.org...
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 5:57:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 7:45:47 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 4/17/2013 6:34:37 AM, APB wrote:
I was curious to see whether countries with "universal" healthcare had a better standard, so I ran the data through a spreadsheet and came up with the following results:

Countries ranked 1 to 190, with 1 being the best and 190 being the worst.

Countries with Universal Healthcare:

Mean rank = 28.03
Standard Deviation = 42.53
Median rank = 50 (Malaysia)
IQR = 64
No Outliers
Highest rank = 1 (France)
Lowest rank = 175 (South Africa)

Countries without Universal Healthcare:

Mean rank = 67.47
Standard Deviation = 70.84
Median rank = 133 (Sao Tome and Principe)
IQR = 67
No Outliers
Highest rank = 24 (Cyprus)
Lowest rank = 190 (Burma)

There seems to be a positive relationship between having Universal Healthcare and having a good standard of healthcare. However, as I have not controlled for other factors (wealth, technology, political system, etc.), I cannot definitely say that one causes the other (based on my analysis).

Raw data was obtained from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I have not double-checked the data to make sure it is accurate, as I didn't have the time. Feel free to follow it up yourself if you want.

The standard deviation is huge in both cases.

I f*cked that up. Just noticed the error this morning. The data should read:

UH Mean = 59.83
UH StdDev = 44.27

Non-UH Mean = 126.93
Non-UH StdDev = 43.14

Sorry guys. My bad.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 6:22:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 2:51:06 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/17/2013 2:38:30 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 4/17/2013 2:35:10 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/17/2013 12:51:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
Things like life expectancy and infant mortality have all to do with culture and almost nothing to do with HC systems.

Anyone who doesn't live to the ripe old age of 125 or so (the time at which VO2max, the maximum amount of oxygen your body is able to distribute to your cells, is insufficient to further sustain life in an otherwise healthy individual) died for a reason that isn't "natural causes" or "old age", but rather because of a medical condition. How well we are able to identify and deal with these conditions determines how long we will live. It doesn't matter how cultured you are, you need an actual doctor to cure diseases.

So, this was literally useless.

I could say the same thing about your unbacked, unsourced assertions.


Um. Would you please provide evidence that universal health care increases life expectancy?

And, by evidence, I don't mean "The USA doesn't have universal health care and has lower life expectancies in Europe".

I mean actual evidence that establishes causality. The BoP is on supporters of universal health care to show that it raises life expectancy. And, this BoP is not even close to having been met.

You never said anything about universal health care in that statement. You said that life expectancy is mostly influenced by culture, which is an outright falsehood.

However, I would argue that having health care readily available to all would increase life expectancy on average by moving the lower part of the population to a higher standard of care. In addition, due to the nature of health care, it is hard to actually apply free market principles to it in a sane manner. A free market depends on competition to make quality go up and to make prices go down. If someone is in need of immediate medical care, they aren't going to go look on Yelp to find the best hospital around. They are going to go to the nearest hospital, since they won't have time to choose a nice one. Furthermore, while the worst thing that can happen in most sectors of the economy due to bad service is a dissatisfied customer, mistakes made in health care get people killed. There is no logical place for competition to exist, nor is there any safety for traditional entrepreneurship. The free market has no place here, since what would be the difference between success and failure is the difference between life and death.

How to determine whether a good or service should be government provided or market provided entirely depends on the excludability of the good. Health care is an excludable good and thus is more efficient on a market.

To say that just because people need health care somehow means that it should be government run is absurd. We need food but I don't see you arguing for a nationalized food industry (although I wouldn't put it past progressives). You can't refuse food because you need it, but there is still a very functional, and very free, food market.

I agree health care is really important, it is a life and death. It is, in fact, too important to leave to a body (the government) that has such a bad track record. Virtually every sector the government intervenes in a large way is characterized by lack of innovation and innefficiency.

The market has a dramatically better track record. So, yes, health care is important. Too important to leave to the government.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 6:29:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 2:47:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/17/2013 11:28:19 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/17/2013 10:54:36 AM, Izayah003 wrote:
Hey can anyone tell me how a Free market healthcare system would be better then universal or other types of healthcare? facts and evidence please, also opinions are great too, would just like clarification on this, i was going to make a thread but thought this would be a good place for it instead. Thanks for the thread.

Currently there's no free-market system in healthcare. The US system is hardly free market. However, it has been shown to do better in some indicators then other nations. For example, the US has better survival rates then other nations for cancer:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The theory for free-market healthcare is that as businesses compete with one another, they will try to keep their prices down. They will also try to come up with innovative solutions and try to make their business run more efficienct, thus increasing output, while minimizing input.

The evidence for prices going down can be seen in some less-regulated medical procedures, such as in cosmetic surgery and Lasik eye surgery:

http://www.ncpa.org...

http://abcnews.go.com...

The problem with insurance as a good is that companies don't just have price and quality as a means of competition.

Say Insurance Company A and Company B have the exact same quality product and prices, and an equal number of citizens applies to each for coverage.

Company A can slaughter Company B by simply refusing to cover all patients whose probability of "cashing in" on insurance exceeds a certain amount.

Company B's "free market" move would then be to increase the amount of people who don't get coverage and so on until the vaunted "equilibrium" is reached.

A way to largely correct this market problem would be to make it so Company A and B can only use price discrimination instead of flatly rejecting to cover a family. This means A and B now have to compete with different sections for different sections of the population instead of simply excluding them. High-risk insurance pools an are example of how to offer coverage to people with extremely high risk of "cashing in" without being prohibitively costly.

I don't think you understand how insurance works. First, let us be clear that what we have in health care today is nothing close to a free market.

Second, we need to establish that insurance is supposed to be for emergencies only, not routine check ups and dentistry. Insurance is basically a person saying that they are willing to pay over time in case a catastrophic thing happens so that thing won't ruin their finances.

In a free market, companies would not only price discriminate based on health history (as they should), but there would be certain companies that specialize in high risk insurance while others specialize in low risk. If someone is already sick, in a truly free market, they would be able to buy insurance... just for an extremely high price. The price would be so high that virtually nobody would do it.

But, saying that we should force insurance companies to cover people who are already sick or have "preexisting conditions" at below a government determined price would be like saying to fire insurance companies that they have to cover people while their house is already on fire. It is silly.

What we need to do in health insurance is make it just that, health insurance.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 6:05:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
BigRat, you have conceded that Singapore's model is better than the US model. Given that Singapore uses government price controls and universal healthcare, you have already conceded that a universal system is better than a free market system.

Healthcare in Singapore is mainly under the responsibility of the Singapore Government's Ministry of Health. Singapore generally has an efficient and widespread system of healthcare. Singapore was ranked 6th in the World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems in the year 2000.[1]

Singapore has a non-modified universal healthcare system where the government ensures affordability of healthcare within the public health system, largely through a system of compulsory savings, subsidies and price controls. Singapore's system uses a combination of compulsory savings from payroll deductions to provide subsidies within a nationalized health insurance plan known as Medisave. Within Medisave, each citizen accumulates funds that are individually tracked, and such funds can be pooled within and across an entire extended family. The vast majority of Singapore citizens have substantial savings in this scheme. One of three levels of subsidy is chosen by the patient at the time of the healthcare episode.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 8:29:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 6:05:11 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
BigRat, you have conceded that Singapore's model is better than the US model. Given that Singapore uses government price controls and universal healthcare, you have already conceded that a universal system is better than a free market system.

Healthcare in Singapore is mainly under the responsibility of the Singapore Government's Ministry of Health. Singapore generally has an efficient and widespread system of healthcare. Singapore was ranked 6th in the World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems in the year 2000.[1]

Singapore has a non-modified universal healthcare system where the government ensures affordability of healthcare within the public health system, largely through a system of compulsory savings, subsidies and price controls. Singapore's system uses a combination of compulsory savings from payroll deductions to provide subsidies within a nationalized health insurance plan known as Medisave. Within Medisave, each citizen accumulates funds that are individually tracked, and such funds can be pooled within and across an entire extended family. The vast majority of Singapore citizens have substantial savings in this scheme. One of three levels of subsidy is chosen by the patient at the time of the healthcare episode.


Must I explain again that a system can be both market oriented and universal. Singapore's system is much more market oriented than the USA... just look at the fact that there system is 2/3 private as opposed to the USA system which is only 1/2 private. Also, they utilize out of pocket expenditures.

No system is entirely market run, but Singapore's system is closer than the USA.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 8:45:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 8:29:00 AM, BigRat wrote:
At 4/18/2013 6:05:11 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
BigRat, you have conceded that Singapore's model is better than the US model. Given that Singapore uses government price controls and universal healthcare, you have already conceded that a universal system is better than a free market system.

Healthcare in Singapore is mainly under the responsibility of the Singapore Government's Ministry of Health. Singapore generally has an efficient and widespread system of healthcare. Singapore was ranked 6th in the World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems in the year 2000.[1]

Singapore has a non-modified universal healthcare system where the government ensures affordability of healthcare within the public health system, largely through a system of compulsory savings, subsidies and price controls. Singapore's system uses a combination of compulsory savings from payroll deductions to provide subsidies within a nationalized health insurance plan known as Medisave. Within Medisave, each citizen accumulates funds that are individually tracked, and such funds can be pooled within and across an entire extended family. The vast majority of Singapore citizens have substantial savings in this scheme. One of three levels of subsidy is chosen by the patient at the time of the healthcare episode.


Must I explain again that a system can be both market oriented and universal. Singapore's system is much more market oriented than the USA... just look at the fact that there system is 2/3 private as opposed to the USA system which is only 1/2 private. Also, they utilize out of pocket expenditures.

No system is entirely market run, but Singapore's system is closer than the USA.

You never explained any such thing previously; you ignored my refutation of your fake examples. Singapore is not market oriented all. It has government price controls and a mandatory health insurance scheme. How is this market oriented? This is far more controlling than anything that the United States government does in healthcare. I suppose you could claim that it is market oriented if you believe in the invisible hand of government regulation.

Is your definition of "private" out of pocket expenditures? Yes, there are out of pocket expenditures, but the subsidies essentially cover the vast majority of the heathcare costs. Universal healthcare does not mean you do not pay; every universal system has some form of required payment. You are setting up a strawdoll system rather than an actual system to attack.

There is a separate private system, but 80% of citizens use the public system and not the private system, so I have no idea where your statistics regarding the existence of a private system that is used by 2/3 of the country is from (Source for my statistics: https://en.wikipedia.org...). In fact, the expenditures on healthcare are so low as a percent of the GDP (about 3%) specifically because the government does not pay for the private system and instead pays for people to use the public system.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 5:06:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 8:45:11 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/18/2013 8:29:00 AM, BigRat wrote:
At 4/18/2013 6:05:11 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
BigRat, you have conceded that Singapore's model is better than the US model. Given that Singapore uses government price controls and universal healthcare, you have already conceded that a universal system is better than a free market system.

Healthcare in Singapore is mainly under the responsibility of the Singapore Government's Ministry of Health. Singapore generally has an efficient and widespread system of healthcare. Singapore was ranked 6th in the World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems in the year 2000.[1]

Singapore has a non-modified universal healthcare system where the government ensures affordability of healthcare within the public health system, largely through a system of compulsory savings, subsidies and price controls. Singapore's system uses a combination of compulsory savings from payroll deductions to provide subsidies within a nationalized health insurance plan known as Medisave. Within Medisave, each citizen accumulates funds that are individually tracked, and such funds can be pooled within and across an entire extended family. The vast majority of Singapore citizens have substantial savings in this scheme. One of three levels of subsidy is chosen by the patient at the time of the healthcare episode.


Must I explain again that a system can be both market oriented and universal. Singapore's system is much more market oriented than the USA... just look at the fact that there system is 2/3 private as opposed to the USA system which is only 1/2 private. Also, they utilize out of pocket expenditures.

No system is entirely market run, but Singapore's system is closer than the USA.

You never explained any such thing previously; you ignored my refutation of your fake examples. Singapore is not market oriented all. It has government price controls and a mandatory health insurance scheme. How is this market oriented? This is far more controlling than anything that the United States government does in healthcare. I suppose you could claim that it is market oriented if you believe in the invisible hand of government regulation.

Not at all. USA has many more distortions that remove cost sharing from the system. Both systems have lots of government and are far from a free market, but as a free market advocate I (and virtually all other free market advocates) prefer Singapore because it is more free.


Is your definition of "private" out of pocket expenditures? Yes, there are out of pocket expenditures, but the subsidies essentially cover the vast majority of the heathcare costs. Universal healthcare does not mean you do not pay; every universal system has some form of required payment. You are setting up a strawdoll system rather than an actual system to attack.

Not at all. We have numbers here. The UK, for instance, is something like 7% out of pocket compared to like 55% for Singapore. The point being that all systems have some out of pocket, but the amount matters a lot.


There is a separate private system, but 80% of citizens use the public system and not the private system, so I have no idea where your statistics regarding the existence of a private system that is used by 2/3 of the country is from (Source for my statistics: https://en.wikipedia.org...). In fact, the expenditures on healthcare are so low as a percent of the GDP (about 3%) specifically because the government does not pay for the private system and instead pays for people to use the public system.

I am talking about financing. There system, like all systems, has both private and public influences. However, theres is more private than any other in the developed world in Singapore. 2/3 of the financing comes from the private sector in Singapore... far more than even the USA.

The reason Singapore's health care costs are so low is that they use market mechanisms to lower costs, which actually works unlike single payer.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 5:54:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have to agree with royalpaladin on this one. Once you introduce mandatory savings and subsidies, you're no longer on the free market. The fact that they consider income when deciding the size of your subsidy is irrelevant. I must say, using insurance and mandatory savings sounds sounds unnecessarily complicated when you could just take it out of the tax pool. We could probably cover a lot of the cost by cutting the salaries of the politicians, I see no reason they should earn more than the population median wage.