Healthcare Costs

[gunner154]

Just trying to play someone who's inquisitive... but why are healthcare costs so high? Is everything really supposed to be expensive? Who will pay if Socialism is to be implemented? Why is a dialysis so expensive? Why are the hormones used so expensive? Aren't these substances mass-produced using bacteria? Why do they cost so much still?

[Cyborg]

In Norway, health care is free.

Unless you go to the doctor, who takes a minor fee for looking at you.

Hospitals are free.

[Edric O]

Healthcare costs are very different in different parts of the world, but they are typically much higher in places where health services are provided by private companies on a health market and much lower in places that have a state-run national health service. I don't know what system Singapore uses, but I know that prices in the USA are insanely high when compared to prices in Europe (where healthcare in provided for free to the patients, like in Norway, Canada, etc., the "prices" I'm talking about are the prices paid by the government to the doctors).

You see, a capitalist market in health services suffers from market failure due to unequal knowledge (the doctor knows far more about health issues than the patient, so the patient can't make an informed choice between the services offered by different doctors), and sometimes also due to an oligopoly (a medical association can exhibit guild-like behavior and turn into a powerful monopolistic cartel, able to set prices as high as it wants - I think the US has something like this).

As for your question about socialism: First of all, healthcare costs are much lower when the system is nationalized (just ask the Scandinavians or the Canadians). Second of all, these costs are paid for by the government using tax money. Every country in the Western World (except the United States) already has a national health system like that. Doesn't Singapore have one?

[Cyborg]

Well, I should mention that while the state-run health care is free, it's inefficient, and costs a grand fortune for the state.

We pay high taxes here.

[Edric O]

Well, I should mention that while the state-run health care is free, it's inefficient, and costs a grand fortune for the state.

Inefficient as opposed to... what, exactly? I know for a fact that health care costs are far lower in Scandinavia than in the United States (among others).

We pay high taxes here.

Yes, that is certainly true, and health care still costs a lot, of course, but my point is that it costs less than in other places. Which means your system is actually quite efficient.

[Anathema]

I don't think health care is free in Canada. Emprworm made a rant about it not to long ago.

Prices are high because even if the medical facilities are non profit orientated, the companies wich deliver the necessary equipment and drugs still are.

Edric: I really find it hard to believe that US hospitals operate as companies. I know that they're encouraged to cut costs and maximise efficiency, but it's not as if Swedish hospitals encourage waste of recources on the other hand.

Also not every country finances healthcare through taxes (or at least not fully), in the Netherlands we have a system of compulsary health insurance, that partially pays for treatment (of course, hospitals are also dependent on government finances)

Inefficient as opposed to... what, exactly? I know for a fact that health care costs are far lower in Scandinavia than in the United States (among others).

Inefficientcy in healthcare: long waiting lines, astronomous drains on the treasury. The system would be cheaper if less tax money is spent on health care then there would be paid directly from the persons wallet. How did you come to this conclusion?

[Khan]

The NHS is free in the UK, although it does just come out of taxes, but you can go private if you want, which costs a fair bit.

[gunner154]

Now a lil' confused.

Anyway, from what we learn in Social Studies, the Welfare State of Britain is extremely inefficient as doctors prescribe medicine with no regard for costs (since they are not profit-oriented). Also, with nationalisation of projects, the employees do not strive to work hard to ensure the company succeeds, and as a result go bankrupt and require the government to save them.

Now Britain is trying to abolish the Welfare State (can that be compared to abolishing Socialism?)

Does this not resemble Socialism? If so, how are we to expect Socialism to work?

[EWS]

The NHS is free in the UK, although it does just come out of taxes, but you can go private if you want, which costs a fair bit.

May be free...but it sure isnt the best in the world in some places.  Though, my recent expierence with the NHS was pretty damn good.  Good Xmas dinner!

[Andrew]

Nothing is free. You get nothing for free.

Canadians pay taxes. Taxes pay for most of our healthcare. I can go to the hospital right now and get treated if I am sick, for free. But I have to pay taxes. Not immediately and it has little to do with how often you are sick. You pay taxers everyyear, based on your income and some other stuff.

[thomas]

regarding hospitals in the US which aren't profit driven, they are severly underfunded (well here in california) and something like 65 emergency departments (not hospitals, a hospital can have dozens of these like the ICU [intensive care unit) and a trauma ward etc.) have closed down due to funding. A doctor in the US gets paid around 150k/yr. but they deserve it considering their education. Now in the US prescryption drugs are outrageously high because the drug companies have their influence in the government so we don't have a drug price cap (Canada has one).

[Edric O]

Now a lil' confused.

Anyway, from what we learn in Social Studies, the Welfare State of Britain is extremely inefficient as doctors prescribe medicine with no regard for costs (since they are not profit-oriented).

I get the impression that your Social Studies would be better called "Propaganda Class", because what they tell you about the welfare state is a flat-out lie. It can be proven using basic knowledge of economics that profit-oriented health services DON'T WORK (to be more exact, they are highly inefficient compared to state-run systems), due to the problem of unequal knowledge and the oligopolistic tendencies in the health market.

Health care prices are high everywhere at the moment, but they are highest in the countries with the least amount of state intervention in the health system - like the United States.

Also, with nationalisation of projects, the employees do not strive to work hard to ensure the company succeeds, and as a result go bankrupt and require the government to save them.

Employees do not strive to work hard to ensure the company succeeds in ANY company, nationalized or not. They strive to work hard so they can get higher wages. Employees will work hard if they are motivated to work hard; the standard motivation comes in the form of higher wages for those who work harder, and this can be applied in any company, regardless of whether it's nationalized or private.

Now Britain is trying to abolish the Welfare State (can that be compared to abolishing Socialism?)

The Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher did everything in their power to destroy the British Welfare State and privatize anything they could get their hands on during the 80's and early 90's. They claimed the welfare state was "inefficient" and that their privatizations would increase efficiency and make things better. In reality, however, putting private companies in charge of things like the railroads resulted in far LESS efficiency, with higher prices and lower quality services. This was one of the primary reasons why the Brits voted for the Labour Party in 1997. Then the Labour Party stopped the destruction of the welfare state (although they haven't re-nationalized all the things that had been privatized by the Thatcher gang, which is why they are now criticized by their own supporters for being too right-wing - but that's another story.

So, in brief, there used to be many people who believed that nationalized companies were inefficient and that privatizing them would solve the problem, but when they finally got their wish and started privatizing things, they were proven wrong on many accounts. Personally, I'd advise them to go back to school and re-study economics, since they appeared to be ignorant of the fact that markets can fail miserabely in certain circumstances. (for a simple explanation, see the Wikipedia article on market failure)

[Dude_Doc]

Yeah, it's quite sad that people takes the path toward some kind of illusion of "free market" and private healthcare. Even in Sweden there is talk about privatizing all hospitals except one in every county (or, the hospitals that want privatization) - which will still be runned by the state.

[nemafakei]

"Anyway, from what we learn in Social Studies, the Welfare State of Britain is extremely inefficient as doctors prescribe medicine with no regard for costs (since they are not profit-oriented). Also, with nationalisation of projects, the employees do not strive to work hard to ensure the company succeeds, and as a result go bankrupt and require the government to save them."

Some treatments are available on the NHS, some aren't. They are weighed up in terms of cost and 'significant benefit to quality of life'.

Oh, and those in the NHS are generally agreed to be the most hard working of all.

As regards bankruptcy, the NHS does with whatever the government pays them. If poorly funded, it slowly goes out of date (e.g. 18 years of the Conservatives), and requires more to make up. But it might be of note that the government has recently been bailing out the rail companies - which were privatised not all that long ago.