The rate they pay is fixed by the state but all the assets — the insurance companies, the hospitals, the insurance policies — are in private hands.
In Germany none of that stuff is state owned, either.
This is one of the strangest things about the healthcare debate in the United States: we frequently contrast our system with “public” systems that are actually well regulated private systems.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesetzliche_Krankenversicherun...
and is 100% state-controlled.
That’s not the same thing as being state owned. Everyone has to be in one but there isn’t only one. Some are connected to regions and some to major industrial consortiums, like Audi.
It’s a small distinction, perhaps — but falsity proves anything. If it’s not state owned, it’s not, and we might as well not obscure debate about the US healthcare system with untruth.
Rank Company 2016 USD billions
1 Johnson & Johnson NYSE: JNJ 71.89
2 Roche SIX: ROG 50.11
3 Pfizer NYSE: PFE 52.82
4 Novartis NYSE: NVS 48.52
Number 2 and Number 4 are swiss companies.
If there is a real free market where consumers have a real choice, it can be argued that the system works, even if it's a race to the bottom. Even you indirectly admitted that most markets aren't free.
There are numerous cases where "socialism" (as laissez-faire Americans like to define it) achieves its goals better and cheaper, like healthcare and pretty much all natural monopolies such as infrastructure. Need any hard evidence with A/B tests? Look at the results of the privatization of European national railways.
I've also been meaning to read more on how the pharmaceutic industry works in the states, if the high prices on drugs are fair or not. Because even though prices may be high, it doesn't necessarily follow that the companies setting those prices are gouging people/being greedy, as many people claim.
I don't know enough about (Western) European railways but I have data about American and Russian railways. Russian railways are controlled by a single government entity and they are a corrupted disaster. Americans tried to nationalize their railways in 1800s and all it led to was higher costs and worse quality.
My observation is that everywhere where markets are let free people get better results. It's true that most markets aren't free but it's not because of the markets themselves but rather because of the government staying on the way.
(E.g. changing the equality laws for men and women, rapidly industrializing an agrarian Russia, leading China to top global economy from a century plus slump, letting Cuba have a top notch and cost effective hospital system, and so on)
The NHS is a good example too, but it requires one to look under the hood and see how many functions have been outsourced to private companies over the last ~20 years.
Specifically:
- Cuba's hospitals are not top notch, to say the least.
- Russia did the rapid industrializing but it already was on this way before the revolution and would be much better off should the socialist revolution never occurred.
- The equality laws for men and women are not due to socialism.
- China enjoyed the economic rise because they freed the marked not because they tied it, it's the opposite of socialism.
Cuba's doctors are excellent. And their healthcare is a marvel compared to their Latin American "free market" equivalents. And let's not even compare cost/benefit ratio to the US one (I obviously don't care if a millionaire can get better high end machines in a US hospital -- for the price of a Central Park overlooking condo or two). They key healthcare indicators are telling:
https://www.georgetownjournalofinternationalaffairs.org/onli...
>- Russia did the rapid industrializing but it already was on this way before the revolution and would be much better off should the socialist revolution never occurred.
If the "socialist revolution never occurred" the push to industrialization would be many times slower, and in all probability Russia would have been defeated and thus a German territory after WWII -- along with all of Eastern Europe if not more. So there's that.
>- The equality laws for men and women are not due to socialism.
"Beginning in October 1918, the Soviet Union liberalized divorce and abortion laws, decriminalized homosexuality, permitted cohabitation, and ushered in a host of reforms that theoretically made women more equal to men." -- Stalin took some of those back, but it took a lot of time for the US to even reach that level (assuming they even have).
>- China enjoyed the economic rise because they freed the marked not because they tied it, it's the opposite of socialism.
China remains a single-party state, with mass government intervention in the economy, and centrally planned activities. Besides, combining an open market with a socialist state is as old as Lenin's NEP.
Whenever I bring up this point I see downvotes. What I would love instead is a counter example of a country whose largest economic sectors do not capture the government and then have a huge hand in dictating policy in those sectors.
Our government intervention in the education market with student loans is just an awful system that encourages prices to continue to rise.
Uhh, Roche? (which also owns Genentech)
Novartis?
You can lead the world in pharma and have it captured by special interests. Infact I would say its almost inevitable.
Now that's not to say that your point about it being bad isn't legitimate.