←back to thread

142 points helloworld | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
seibelj ◴[] No.12306806[source]
Can anyone succinctly explain the benefits of having a market for private health insurance companies, rather than a single provider of health insurance (government, aka "public option")? Can a capitalist case be made for their existence? Does the lack of a large private insurance market in countries with government-provided health insurance cause lots of inefficiencies and waste?
replies(35): >>12306825 #>>12306846 #>>12306849 #>>12306865 #>>12306883 #>>12306896 #>>12306906 #>>12306909 #>>12306920 #>>12306921 #>>12306948 #>>12306954 #>>12306958 #>>12306977 #>>12306983 #>>12307038 #>>12307105 #>>12307152 #>>12307153 #>>12307306 #>>12307335 #>>12307342 #>>12307397 #>>12307504 #>>12307572 #>>12307975 #>>12308036 #>>12308110 #>>12308127 #>>12308342 #>>12308357 #>>12308931 #>>12309015 #>>12309142 #>>12309820 #
Mister_Snuggles ◴[] No.12306906[source]
It's hard to tell if there are inefficiencies and waste or if health care is just simply really expensive.

Health care is done by the Provinces in Canada, with transfers from the Federal Government to help out. The most recent Alberta budget[0] puts the cost of health care at about $20B. This represents approximately 40% of Alberta government spending.

Is that due to waste or inefficiencies? I honestly have no idea. I just know that it's a big number.

Another thing to keep in mind is that, at least in Canada, the government provides some base amount of health services, but there are still other things that aren't covered. In Alberta, someone might go to the ER for a severe asthma attack and that's covered, but the prescriptions to keep the asthma under control are paid for out of pocket or from a benefit plan (which could be an individual plan or through an employer). Similarly, dental is not covered, but may be covered under a benefit plan.

[0] http://finance.alberta.ca/publications/budget/budget2016/fis...

replies(5): >>12307003 #>>12307087 #>>12307151 #>>12307227 #>>12308579 #
graeme ◴[] No.12307087[source]
Why do you say inefficiencies? 40% is entirely out of context, because you haven't listed what other budgeting responsibilities Canadian provinces have.

Canada spends far less per capita on health than the us, and gets better outcomes.

It's certainly expensive, but it's hard to make the case that Canadian care is expensive relative to the US.

replies(1): >>12307325 #
1. Mister_Snuggles ◴[] No.12307325[source]
I was replying to this part of the parent comment when I used the words "inefficiencies" and "waste":

> Does the lack of a large private insurance market in countries with government-provided health insurance cause lots of inefficiencies and waste?

I also acknowledged that I have no idea if $20B is good or bad. And I did not make the case that it's more or less expensive relative to the US.

Another commenter took the Alberta budget numbers and ran with it to get to a per-capita cost relative to the US.

replies(1): >>12307956 #
2. parasubvert ◴[] No.12307956[source]
It's all relative. Alberta is "high" compared to other provinces though in the ball park of the other prairie provinces (Sask & Manitoba) per capita, though BC only spends $18B-ish for a higher population.

Ontario spends $50.8B, pop 13.1m, which seems more efficient per capita than Alberta; France is inline with that per capita ; the UK spends $195.8B (CAD), pop 64.1m, which is even lower.

In general, health care is really damn expensive.