What is the point in private healthcare?

[MorkandMindy]

1 It provides junk mail, lots of it.

2 It wastes 10% of the entire nation's GDP, on administration and huge profits for pointless billionaires.

Beyond that I'm not sure what it does for anyone.

 

[jacks]

This may have something to do with it.

Which Industry Spends the Most on Lobbying?
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products: $4,450,373,773.
Spending $4.45 billion over the past 22 years, the pharmaceutical and health products industry has far outpaced all other industries in lobbying spending.

 

[MorkandMindy]

The figures are from 2016, if somebody is interested I'll find some more recent data, but nobody usually cares about anything major like 2 trillion dollars. If I had the latest hot news on Biden's dog I know that would be more interesting.

This graph indicates that the US government alone funds US healthcare at a similar level to the wealthy countries of the World, and suggests that perhaps the private funding is just icing on the cake.

I'm fairly sure that is true, private funding does nothing substantial for the availability or quality of healthcare in the country as a whole.

 

[JohnB445]

1 It provides junk mail, lots of it.

2 It wastes 10% of the entire nation's GDP, on administration and huge profits for pointless billionaires.

Beyond that I'm not sure what it does for anyone.

Because public healthcare, along with all public things are mediocre in quality. The government can go ahead and provide it for others, I won't use it.

 

[Gene2memE]

Private healthcare provides lots of options that public healthcare does not (and should not).

For instance, my wife is a surgeon (breast and endocrine cancer specalist, as well as a general/emergency background). There are certain reconstructive/plastic surgery procedures that are not covered in the public sector that are covered via private healthcover.

So, a patient can come in and have a cancer cut out under the public system and then have a reduction/enhancement or reshaping of their breast tissue done under private healthcare.

I'm fine with public dollars being spend on cancer treatment. I'm not as fine with public dollars being spent on cosmetic surgeries.

 

[Gene2memE]

Because public healthcare, along with all public things are mediocre in quality.

Depends on the country, the particular system, and which parts of the system you're talking about.

In Australia, the best surgeons are generally the ones with jobs in both the public sector and the private sector. In fact, there's more cache/prestige in receiving a public sector appointment than there is in running a wholly private practice. The view (generally) is that those that are in private practice couldn't hack it in the public system and had to move to the private sector because they couldn't measure up to the standards.

Even within Australia though, that's variable. There's a move favourable view of private sector only surgeons in Western Australia and Queensland than there is in NSW or Victoria, for instance.

The difference between private and public medical practice in Australia comes not in the standard of medical care, but in the standards of things surrounding your medical care. So, in the pay-for-play sector, you get nicer rooms, better beds, better food, better rehab, more follow-ups, better attention from nurses, ect, ect.

However, on an actual medical basis, there's no difference in the standard of care and the medical outcomes (in Australia there's a very slight bias in most medical disciplines towards better outcomes in the public sector).

 

[MorkandMindy]

The private insurance money goes in and what does it do?

A substantial amount goes to the owners of the healthcare companies, the profits are huge.

Some goes on advertising and administrating the ever more complex portfolio of different policies company offers and changes, terminates, or introduces.

The amount that goes to whatever services they pay for evidently achieves nothing.

How can that be? Well the private insurance companies need for itemized billing and the cost of adding that to the entire system is about equal to the amount they end up actually contributing.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Depends on the country, the particular system, and which parts of the system you're talking about.

In Australia, the best surgeons are generally the ones with jobs in both the public sector and the private sector. In fact, there's more cache/prestige in receiving a public sector appointment than there is in running a wholly private practice. The view (generally) is that those that are in private practice couldn't hack it in the public system and had to move to the private sector because they couldn't measure up to the standards.

Even within Australia though, that's variable. There's a move favourable view of private sector only surgeons in Western Australia and Queensland than there is in NSW or Victoria, for instance.

The difference between private and public medical practice in Australia comes not in the standard of medical care, but in the standards of things surrounding your medical care. So, in the pay-for-play sector, you get nicer rooms, better beds, better food, better rehab, more follow-ups, better attention from nurses, ect, ect.

However, on an actual medical basis, there's no difference in the standard of care and the medical outcomes (in Australia there's a very slight bias in most medical disciplines towards better outcomes in the public sector).

In Britain the public/private divide is a bit different. Severe trauma is handled by the public sector as far as I'm aware exclusively. The private sector handles a lot of the cosmetic work and electives.

 

[Portalmon]

Key word: "private"

 

[Gene2memE]

The private insurance money goes in and what does it do?

Generally, provides an alternative to the public system, allowing people to do things like:

Shop around for a doctor/surgeon
Have options about the hospital they want an operation at
Have access to nicer/better facilities
Accelerate access to specialised care
Access ancillary services not offered in the public system.

I'd also like to point out that not all private insurance markets are equal. In Australia, private health insurance averages profit margins of about 4% to 6%, which is barely an acceptable return on capital/return on investment. In the US, those margins are more like 9% to 15%.

If you want to gripe about excessive profit generation in the US healthcare sector, then start complaining about the following:

Pharmaceutical firms (average profit margins above 25%, nine of the 10 most profitable firms in the healthcare sector are drug makers)
Medical diagnostics firms/laboratories (profit margins above 40%)
Medical device firms (profit margins of 12% to 16%)
Biotech firms (profit margins above 20%)

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

This graph indicates that the US government alone funds US healthcare at a similar level to the wealthy countries of the World, and suggests that perhaps the private funding is just icing on the cake.

How does the US government "fund" healthcare.

When their solution for every problem has been to force businesses and employers to cover the cost of health insurance for employees.

 

[Aussie Pete]

1 It provides junk mail, lots of it.

2 It wastes 10% of the entire nation's GDP, on administration and huge profits for pointless billionaires.

Beyond that I'm not sure what it does for anyone.

Depends on how good the public system is. Australia has a dual system. I'd like to know why a public hospital needs a marketing department at all, let alone 7 people, as one of our local hospitals has. I was involved in sales to engineering departments of hospitals so I had some insight from the behind the scenes people. Private hospitals may take your money to make others rich. Public hospitals take everyone's money and without their consent.

I avoided hospitals for over 40 years. I've not had private health cover. I was treated well and it cost me nothing. Except through my taxes. One trip in an ambulance, while I suffered atrial fibrillation, took 45 minutes. The local hospital, about 2 minutes away, was swamped. I was not seen by a doctor for several hours. Thank God for God. Some friends prayed for me and I was on my way home at midnight. By taxi. Also 45 minutes.

Those who can afford it (not so many these days) should have health cover. Those who cannot, have to put up with a system that swallows huge amounts of money for an inferior service. It's just the way it is.

 

[Anthony2019]

In Britain the public/private divide is a bit different. Severe trauma is handled by the public sector as far as I'm aware exclusively. The private sector handles a lot of the cosmetic work and electives.

In the UK, virtually no private hospital is equipped to deal with emergencies.
When people call for an ambulance, they are taken to their nearest NHS hospital.
Most of our larger towns have NHS hospitals with an emergency department. In more rural/remote locations, they have Minor Injury Units. In addition, there are a number of regional Major Trauma Centres at larger hospitals across the country dealing with the most severe illnesses and injuries.
All of these services are publicly funded and free at the point of need.
Our private hospitals simply do not have facilities that are comprehensive enough to provide such a service.

 

[RDKirk]

Private healthcare provides lots of options that public healthcare does not (and should not).

For instance, my wife is a surgeon (breast and endocrine cancer specalist, as well as a general/emergency background). There are certain reconstructive/plastic surgery procedures that are not covered in the public sector that are covered via private healthcover.

So, a patient can come in and have a cancer cut out under the public system and then have a reduction/enhancement or reshaping of their breast tissue done under private healthcare.

I'm fine with public dollars being spend on cancer treatment. I'm not as fine with public dollars being spent on cosmetic surgeries.

There is no discussion being had about eliminating the availability of private practice and private insurance to cover optional medical care. That's a red herring argument.

 

[RDKirk]

I avoided hospitals for over 40 years. I've not had private health cover. I was treated well and it cost me nothing. Except through my taxes. One trip in an ambulance, while I suffered atrial fibrillation, took 45 minutes. The local hospital, about 2 minutes away, was swamped. I was not seen by a doctor for several hours. Thank God for God. Some friends prayed for me and I was on my way home at midnight. By taxi. Also 45 minutes.

In the US, that ambulance trip alone will run around a thousand dollars. These days a lot of people call Uber or Lyft to get them to the emergency room.

And my own doctor warned me never to go to an emergency clinic, but unless I was outright bleeding out, always go to the emergency room of a full hospital. That way, the ER doctors will already have privileges to hospital facilities and can get you to more advanced services quickly without a time-consuming re-admittance and being lower in priority than the hospital's own doctors.

 

[cow451]

Because public healthcare, along with all public things are mediocre in quality. The government can go ahead and provide it for others, I won't use it.

What if you cannot get it?

 

[cow451]

Private healthcare provides lots of options that public healthcare does not (and should not).

For instance, my wife is a surgeon (breast and endocrine cancer specalist, as well as a general/emergency background). There are certain reconstructive/plastic surgery procedures that are not covered in the public sector that are covered via private healthcover.

So, a patient can come in and have a cancer cut out under the public system and then have a reduction/enhancement or reshaping of their breast tissue done under private healthcare.

I'm fine with public dollars being spend on cancer treatment. I'm not as fine with public dollars being spent on cosmetic surgeries.

What is your definition of "public healthcare" in the US?

 

[DaisyDay]

1 It provides junk mail, lots of it.

2 It wastes 10% of the entire nation's GDP, on administration and huge profits for pointless billionaires.

Beyond that I'm not sure what it does for anyone.

 

[mama2one]

In the US, that ambulance trip alone will run around a thousand dollars.

we're fortunate then

no ambulance charge by local EMS as long as one lives in our town!

 

[mama2one]

When their solution for every problem has been to force businesses and employers to cover the cost of health insurance for employees.

husband's employer "contributes" /our costs go up yrly
huge chunk comes out of husband's paycheck
to get a discount, he's required to get a yearly physical which he does

insurance does not pay for everything, either
not even close