Americans are unhappy with the state of health care and insurance
Americans are unhappy with the state of health care and insurance
538's polling column about the state of health care, voters' trust in the 2024 election results and President Joe Biden's approval rating.
Summary
Polls show a majority blame insurance and pharmaceutical companies for high costs, denied claims, and access issues.
Only 44% rate U.S. health care quality as “good” or “excellent,” a 20-year low.
Support for government intervention is rising, with 62% favoring federal responsibility for universal health care.
Meanwhile, satisfaction with the Affordable Care Act has grown, with 54% approving.
Trump’s unclear health care overhaul plans are entering a polarized environment where Americans remain split on private versus government-run systems.
You're viewing part of a thread.
But private health insurance can coexist with universal healthcare
Maybe, but generally universal has subsidies and so private cannot compete. Or universal has limits on coverage thus making poor who really need help unable to get good care
That second sentence isn't true
Why would someone in a universal system get prikate insurance anyway
As somebody who has by now lived in 2 countries with Universal Healthcare I can answer that:
- It's for people who want faster access to non-emergency medical treatment than the public system will provide.
So if you want to not to have to wait months for specialist appointments and surgery and you can afford it, you get Healthcare Insurance. This even more so for aesthetic and run of the mill dental treatment - the Public isn't going to, for example, just put you in front of the queue to give you an implant unless it's deemed necessary because of your health, so if your concern is about your appearance you'll have to wait years or it won't even be covered.
Mind you, the whole thing is still backed by the Public Healthcare System: if during a surgery at a private hospital you have massive complications they'll generally transfer you to a Public Hospital.
Further, even in the Private everything is way cheaper because of the massive competition from the Public System, plus the Public even uses its leverage to keep the prices of more common medicine low (basically since most of the prescriptions are done by doctors in the Public System, for things were there are multiple options the most expensive stuff doesn't get prescribed unless it offers enough benefit versus the cheaper options to justify it, so for example things like Insulin are way cheaper if you get it without a prescription from a Public System doctor and free or near free if you do because the State pays most or all of the price)
Anyways, the single biggest benefit of Universal Healthcare which the "free market is the best" (in this case it isn't: in general the free market optimizes for profit, not for outcomes, and further, in this domain people will pay whatever it takes to survive and don't actually have the expertise to judge the quality of treatment and know the availability of other options, so there is no natural free market here) crowd forgets is the peace of mind and freedom Universal Healthcare gives:
- if you lose your job, you're still fine even if you have and accident or get sick
- if you want to change jobs you have total freedom as you won't be without Healthcare for you and your family in the period between jobs
- if you need or want to stop working on a regular jobs (because you want to start your own company or want to take a sabatical or want to go back to school and get a degree) you can without losing your Healthcare coverage during that period and it's going to be way cheaper than if you had to pay Health Insurance (and copays) during that time.
Private Healthcare Systems are very much prisons that keep people tied to traditional jobs,
All of your bullets are specific to company provided health care. Which is why I oppose that.
Not at all - re-read the last one.
Not having to pay for Healthcare Insurance means it's significantly cheaper for a person to do personal life projects that take months or years with little or no income, like getting further education or starting your own company, because your savings (or income from part time work) mainly have to cover housing and food, not Healthcare Insurance (which is almost as costly as housing, more so for people with pre-existing conditions)
It's easier to change your career and even your life in general when you don't have that extra cost of Health Insurance (and hence have a longer "runway" for your new situation to take off and become self-sustainable, as your money will stretch more).
Maybe private insurance is problem then? Because they used to not have viable alternatives? Or how would ancap phrase it "used to not have competetion".
The problem is tax law! The money my company pays for my health insurance is not taxed. If instead of giving me their insurance they give me that $1000/month what I get (after taxes) is around $700/month.
As such private insurance as learned to serve their customer: the company I work for. Since I'm not the customer they do not serve me. There is plenty of competition in private insurance, but I don't get too look for it, I'm limited to whatever my company gives me as options, which works out to two different plans from the same company with tiny differences.
Returning to this. Tax law by itself is least problem. Recent example is Canada, where they zeroed taxes for month, and prices got increased as result. Private companies will charge as much as people are willing to pay.
I will expand my other reply and tell how and why UHC will make even private healthcare better. Right now in USSA alternative to private healthcare is dying. While in developed countries alternative to private healthcare is healthcare. When even worst national insurance(other kind of single-player system) provides functioning healthcare, asking 1k for spit-and-pray healthcare is not a viable buisness model. If you really want competetion for patients, then UHC is it. Without it yoir healthcare is race to the bottom - minimum healthcare for maximum price.
what I get (after taxes) is around $700/month.
Is it not subtracted from taxes? In Europe paying for healthcare generally counts as pre-tax expence, so you pay taxes as if you did not receive money that you paid for healthcare. Basically less direct private healthcare subsidy.
Since I'm not the customer they do not serve me.
Yep. That's also why having UHC is better.
US tax law around health care is bad. That is my point.
UHC the customer is the government, not you. Well indirectly you since you own the government, but you then have to figure out if you vote for the person who wants UHC like you or the one who [something else unrelated to health care].
UHC the customer is the government, not you. Well indirectly you since you own the government,
True, goverment does not exist in a vacuum. Even Putin's authoritarianism can't ignore dissatisfaction. And goverment is not just owned by people, it IS people.
but you then have to figure out if you vote for the person who wants UHC like you or the one who [something else unrelated to health care].
I'm thinking how to reply for 15 minutes, and still have no idea. Almost all people who want to be elected are either in support of UHC(left, most nationalists), want to be seen as supporting(right, Putin's oligarchs) or would not care, but opposing UHC would contradict their ideology(pirates). And opposing single-payer models in general... It's a suicude.
You appear to be somewhere in the EU from you comment. So what if you want to make a small change to UHC?
The other reply answered your question better than I ever could so I'll leave it at that
"Subsidies", lol. USSA subsidised its private health insurance companies more, than any other in the world. Private companies are great at double-charging. That's why healthcare should be single-payer system.
Or universal has limits on coverage thus making poor who really need help unable to get good care
What do you even try to say? Let's say I break leg. In country with UHC I will:
- Be transported by ambulance
- Get x-ray
- Get surgery if needed
- Get cast
- Get stay in hospital if needed
- Get cast removed
- Go home happy and healthy
In country without UHC I will:
- Pay
- Pay
- Maybe see a doctor
- Pay
- Pay
- Pay
- Maybe get cast
- Pay
- Got sent home and pay
- Pay more
- Maybe get bone to heal, but neither be happy, nor healthy due to malnutrition
- Get cast removed for extra payment
In first example I spent about 1$ for metro ticket back home, while in second one I would be bankrupt 12 times.
What if you have a tumor that needs to be removed but the doctors determine it isn't cancer. How long do you wait?
As long as you are not willing to adopt and maintain UHC. And as long as it takes to remove that kind of tumor. Or do you really think privatizing healthcare will make those tumors disappear?