News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Both in rich and poor countries, universal health care br... by mc32 on Wednesday May 02, 2018 @11:04AM (#16977547)
Universal healthcare benefits people with no coverage, which is good, but it also, in the case of nationalized healthcare, i.e. not privately run, leads also to lower quality care for people already with coverage where experience is people who can afford it, will when other than the most routine things, seek private care.

Given that, it looks like a two tiered system might work best. One which works like the current system and also another for the not quite indigent but can’t afford the current system (indigent are covered by Medicaid).

Re:Both in rich and poor countries, universal health care br... by beagle3 on Wednesday May 02, 2018 @11:53AM (#16978172)
What works well outside of the US is that the single-payer government run (or at least government mandated) provides a standard level of care, which more often than not includes wellness and life threatening care (and a lot in-between), and one can buy additional coverage in the private market - but the basic standard care is considered a right, and doesn't disappear just because you have some additional coverage.
Re:Both in rich and poor countries, universal health care br... by dv_dt on Wednesday May 02, 2018 @12:08PM (#16978366)
When you look at other modern nations, all with better performing healthcare systems than the US, there is a mix of arrangements. The common factor is public gov't control of drug prices and procedures. The arrangement of how the administration of the care is allocated varies all across the spectrum, from fully nationalized, to hybrids, to mostly private administration. But I'm inclined to think that public health experts setting cost ceilings by drug & procedure is the critical element.