News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Every company should be owned by its employees by forgetfreeman on Thursday July 25, 2024 @10:09AM (#41068878)
You wanna review the track record of market driven healthcare systems vs socialized medicine? Spoiler: the US has one of the worst (by any metric you care to track) healthcare systems of any industrialized nation. Just because someone else's shit is broken doesn't necessarily mean your shit is working.
Re:Every company should be owned by its employees by jcranmer on Thursday July 25, 2024 @10:44AM (#41069291)
> Spoiler: the US has one of the worst (by any metric you care to track) healthcare systems of any industrialized nation.

That "by any metric" is just plain wrong. There's several metrics by which the US healthcare system is among the best--in general, if the metric you are tracking is largely covering the success rates of medical procedures (sibling comment mentions 5-year cancer survival rates, for example), then the US generally scores high. If the metric you are tracking is instead covering general population health or things easily caught with preventative medicine, then the US scores abysmally in those metrics.

In other words, the US healthcare system actually turns out to be very good (if perhaps not on a per-cost metric)... but access to the good healthcare system is extremely poor. And that's kind of what you'd expect for a market-driven system: good healthcare if you can afford it, shit healthcare if you can't.

Re:Every company should be owned by its employees by jazz9k on Thursday July 25, 2024 @10:51AM (#41069386)
Socialized systems are subsidized by the US drug companies. Corporations pour billions of dollars into r&d and other countries end up making cheap generics of the final product, without having to do any of the research.

US Healthcare is expensive, but the quality is better than most other countries.

Re:Every company should be owned by its employees by piva00 on Thursday July 25, 2024 @12:06PM (#41070273)
> Socialized systems are subsidized by the US drug companies. Corporations pour billions of dollars into r&d and other countries end up making cheap generics of the final product, without having to do any of the research.

The American pharma companies also don't do the research, a lot of it comes from scientific institutions funded by public money.

What pharma companies do is provide capital for drug trials which are absurdly expensive, they are more alike investment companies than actual research institutes...

Re:Every company should be owned by its employees by forgetfreeman on Thursday July 25, 2024 @12:23PM (#41070480)
Fun Fact: most large pharma companies spend more on marketing than R&D.
Re:Every company should be owned by its employees by nradov on Thursday July 25, 2024 @10:13AM (#41068917)
I care to track cancer 5-year survival rates and the number of new drugs introduced per year. By those metrics the US is at or near the top. The US healthcare system has plenty of flaws but it does some things quite well.
Re:Every company should be owned by its employees by forgetfreeman on Thursday July 25, 2024 @12:18PM (#41070426)
Drug discovery clusters in the US because the EU doesn't permit profiteering
Re:Every company should be owned by its employees by nradov on Thursday July 25, 2024 @01:44PM (#41071320)
Then it seems that permitting profiteering results in better outcomes. At least for certain things.
Re:Every company should be owned by its employees by forgetfreeman on Friday July 26, 2024 @02:11AM (#41076175)
Tell that to the folks that are dying because they can't afford off-patent insulin. I know a young lady who passed away in her dorm room a couple years back because she'd been rationing, I could introduce you to her family, I'm sure they'd be delighted for your take on medical profiteering.
Re:Every company should be owned by its employees by WalterBright on Thursday July 25, 2024 @12:42PM (#41070683)
The US health care system is primarily run by the government.
Re:Every company should be owned by its employees by qwytw on Thursday July 25, 2024 @12:51PM (#41070771)
> (by any metric you care to track) healthcare systems of any industrialized nation

That's certainly not true. Of course compared to pretty much every highly developed country if we factor in relative spending per capita you'd be right.

But yeah, purely market/profit driven systems (with extremely poor and inefficient regulation) certainly don't work in certain sectors like healthcare.

Also it depends on what do you mean by 'socialized medicine', if you're specifically talking about single payer, your point is only valid if you ignore all other countries which don't have single payer besides the US. The Swiss and (as far as I can tell) to a lesser Dutch healthcare systems are 'privatized' to a much higher degree than the one in US i.e. effectively fully, there are no Medicare/Medicaid equivalents there. Instead they are very strictly and relatively efficiently regulated. They pretty much have Obama/Romneycare++.

If you mean something else than single-payer then the US system is arguably heavily 'socialized', both through insurance polling (just like in the countries I mentioned) and because the US government itself spends more on healthcare than most industrialized countries even relative to GDP. e.g. if we exclude all private spending (both individual and insurance) government health spending per capita in the US is significantly higher than in Britain and more than 2x higher than in Spain (and still significantly higher if adjusted by PPP GDP per capita)

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.GHED.PP.CD?locat...