http://mises.org/daily/6476/The-Truth-About-SwedenCare



I am curious to hear what our liberal posters have to say about this first hand account of universal health care in Sweden.

Can't believe liberals would say anything right now. Where is the outrage from the left over the delay in implication?

1. It is kind like Posting an Article written by Michael Moore from the Daily Kos in support of Cuba's healthcare system when you post an article from Mises.org

If I posted an article by a communist praising Cuba's healthcare I would be lampooned on here but it would be nearly equivalent.

2. Pure laissez-faire market trope you would expect from Teh Goldbug extraordinaires at Mises. Clearly unfamiliar with Kenneth Arrow's "Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Healthcare" that got him the nobel prize for showing that neoclassical style supply and demand equilibrium doesn't function the way the classical model predicts in healthcare markets. People don't go "They've got a great deal on splints at Doctor X's" "Say doc, I think I can get a better deal on Chemo for this tumor over at the Cleveland Clinic than here at University Hospital". The providers are able to set prices unlike they would in free markets because healthcare consumers are not "consumers" in the ordinary use of the term. They're patients with a lack of information, among other problems. To paraphrase Keynes, the magic of the marketplace is a special case and not the general case and that was born out by Prof. Arrow in the healthcare market.

But this won't stop the Austrians at Mises.org...remember...they don't use empiricism and they're proud of it!


3. The guy writes:

When I moved to the U.S., our family health insurance took three months to kick in. One of my family members broke a leg in this period. We found a “five-minute clinic” half an hour away, had the leg X-rayed, straightened and casted, with no waiting time — all for $200 cash. That kind of service is non-existent in Sweden. It is an example of how a market, not yet totally destroyed by the state, can create affordable and high quality services.

I find it hard to believe getting a "leg straightened" at the hands of a doctor, with a cast put on and X-rays only cost $200 in the united states of America. The average cost of an X-ray alone can cost that much.

And, in Sweden, a broken leg would be considered an emergency and getting it X-rayed, casted and straightened would be done without charge and minimal wait time.

4. Just more mythologizing about people not being able to see doctors when they need to. Yes, it's not easy to go see a doctor/emergency room for a runny nose and a sore throat but that is the exact type of thing that Conservatives complain about here in the States when they say that we consume too much healthcare. Nevermind of course that they spend way less than we do...getting way more for their dollars and are way healthier.

So in sum, a bunch of boiler-plate garbage that we can typically expect from Mises.org.

^LMFAO!!!!

When facts are against you, attack the source.

So an economist that LIVED IN SWEDEN gives first hand experience about what has happened in Sweden and then first hand experience about what happens in the US and you resort to ad hominem logical fallacy BS?

Come on, I thought you were better than that.

So he is making up all that stuff that he saw in Sweden?

queencitybuckeye;1470571 wrote:When facts are against you, attack the source.

lol...coming from you of all people. It's funny, I mentioned the first part about how people would complain if I provided a communist as a source, etc. with you as one of the posters in mind...as you constantly levy personal attacks against me and other posters...rather than attack the argument as well as demean my sources as biased/not good (even though they are always better than mises.org). If I posted an article from Think Progress, DailyKos, etc. you would be the first one on here lambasting the source. It should've been clear I was mentioning it as a caveat.

And, in case you did not notice, after I made my initial point that I did not think it was a good source and that I would be dismissed if I provided a similar ideological source, I attacked the arguments made in the article in the subsequent points.

I argued that the author's opinion on how markets work in healthcare are suspect based on evidence from Nobel Prize winning article by a neoclassical economist. I also questioned some of the facts presented in the article to justify his position.

Considering how much you attack me personally (rather than my arguments) perhaps we will take it as a concession from your quote in this thread that the facts are often against you when debating with me. :thumbup:

jmog;1470592 wrote:So an economist that LIVED IN SWEDEN gives first hand experience about what has happened in Sweden and then first hand experience about what happens in the US and you resort to ad hominem logical fallacy BS?

Come on, I thought you were better than that.

So he is making up all that stuff that he saw in Sweden?

I'd say a fair amount is ideological exaggeration, yes. As I said, I find his anecdotal account of the cost of the X-ray and the casting to have a tenuous relationship to truth at best given the cost of healthcare in the United States. Like I said, he makes it sound like if he went to the emergency room with a broken leg in Sweden he wouldn't have gotten to be treated very quickly and that is incorrect. A broken leg is a valid emergency and he would've been seen quickly and at no cost to the patient. So that major claim for evidence of efficacy is simply false. He spends much of the rest of the article musing about market forces in healthcare that are not supported by the literature and would have nothing to do with his own personal experience in Sweden....not unlike all austrian economists who do not rely on empiricism but so-called deductions from the logic of human action, etc.

You hear similar horror stories in various op-eds about teh s0cialist healthcare systems in the UK and Canada and Hong Kong and Singapore etc. etc. etc. from time to time. And yet, surveys of the people in those countries by and large are very satisfied with their healthcare and are healthier and happier than in the United States.

Me?;1470562 wrote:^LMFAO!!!!

Smart take. I can tell you will be a very informative poster who contributes positively to this forum and our political discourse from your short posting history.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought someone as long winded and as well read as you make yourself out to be, you'd understand why there isn't a point in any rebuttal to that BS you spewed. Any opponent of Austrian economics, while being a proponent of a progressive economic idea, who also ignores first hand information built on experience, is not worthy of an argument. It's better to just watch you rant and destroy yourself.

I agree that the $200 story is bullshit

Me?;1470611 wrote:Oh, I'm sorry. I thought someone as long winded and as well read as you make yourself out to be, you'd understand why there isn't a point in any rebuttal to that BS you spewed. Any opponent of Austrian economics, while being a proponent of a progressive economic idea, who also ignores first hand information built on experience, is not worthy of an argument. It's better to just watch you rant and destroy yourself.

Indeed, and I'm sure you would just swallow the alleged first-hand experience of a marxist who spends most of sm article praising the wonders of central planning with no evidence like it was a bag of dicks.

So, just to be clear, BS you are saying that this guy is lying about 5-7 hour waits in ERs in Sweden unless you are in a severe emergency (major bleeding, etc)?

Also, you don't know how long he has been in the US, it could have been 15 years ago that he got a broken leg fixed for $200. I went just 2 years ago to an urgent care facility to have a skin condition checked out for my son (he had a wrestling tournament the next day and an ER visit wasn't necessary).

A doctor checked it out and ran a test of some sort (don't remember) to rule out staph. My insurance covers Urgent care facilities but only as reimbursement, so I had to pay upfront and send in the paperwork to get paid back.

It was under $200 to see a nurse, a doctor, and have a test ran to rule out an infection. That was 2 years ago.

I'm not sure what is so controversial about anything the author wrote - any person that has lived in European socialized health systems understands that getting any type of healthcare that isn't life threatening is time consuming and inefficient. It can take months to get an annual health exam in some countries.

"You hear similar horror stories in various op-eds about teh s0cialist healthcare systems in the UK and Canada and Hong Kong and Singapore etc. etc. etc. from time to time. And yet, surveys of the people in those countries by and large are very satisfied with their healthcare and are healthier and happier than in the United States."

I have no idea why anyone would compare European healthcare systems to Singapore unless it is making the point that Euros often travel to Singapore during their holidays to get quick and efficient care (not always cheap). Medical tourism is a huge industry in SE Asia due to all the Euros visiting. I'm not sure what is socialist about anything in Singapore given the percentage of residents that are foreign nationals. Every place I went took cash payment at the time of visit.

Manhattan Buckeye;1470803 wrote:"You hear similar horror stories in various op-eds about teh s0cialist healthcare systems in the UK and Canada and Hong Kong and Singapore etc. etc. etc. from time to time. And yet, surveys of the people in those countries by and large are very satisfied with their healthcare and are healthier and happier than in the United States."

I have no idea why anyone would compare European healthcare systems to Singapore unless it is making the point that Euros often travel to Singapore during their holidays to get quick and efficient care (not always cheap). Medical tourism is a huge industry in SE Asia due to all the Euros visiting. I'm not sure what is socialist about anything in Singapore given the percentage of residents that are foreign nationals. Every place I went took cash payment at the time of visit.

But MB your first hand experience is a lie! BS has the graphs to prove it!

jmog;1470796 wrote:So, just to be clear, BS you are saying that this guy is lying about 5-7 hour waits in ERs in Sweden unless you are in a severe emergency (major bleeding, etc)?

Also, you don't know how long he has been in the US, it could have been 15 years ago that he got a broken leg fixed for $200. I went just 2 years ago to an urgent care facility to have a skin condition checked out for my son (he had a wrestling tournament the next day and an ER visit wasn't necessary).

A doctor checked it out and ran a test of some sort (don't remember) to rule out staph. My insurance covers Urgent care facilities but only as reimbursement, so I had to pay upfront and send in the paperwork to get paid back.

It was under $200 to see a nurse, a doctor, and have a test ran to rule out an infection. That was 2 years ago.

This isn't even close to claiming that they got xrays, had a radiologist read them, get a cast along with a standard visit for under $200. Not to mention, the majority of "minute clinics" wouldn't even treat a broken limb, as urgent cares usually don't even have their own imaging capabilities.

jmog;1470796 wrote:So, just to be clear, BS you are saying that this guy is lying about 5-7 hour waits in ERs in Sweden unless you are in a severe emergency (major bleeding, etc)?

Also, you don't know how long he has been in the US, it could have been 15 years ago that he got a broken leg fixed for $200. I went just 2 years ago to an urgent care facility to have a skin condition checked out for my son (he had a wrestling tournament the next day and an ER visit wasn't necessary).

A doctor checked it out and ran a test of some sort (don't remember) to rule out staph. My insurance covers Urgent care facilities but only as reimbursement, so I had to pay upfront and send in the paperwork to get paid back.

It was under $200 to see a nurse, a doctor, and have a test ran to rule out an infection. That was 2 years ago.

I agree that you have wait times for non-emergency medical care in countries like Sweden. Everyone agrees that there are wait times for non-essential, non-emergency care in these countries. Where he is wrong is to suggest that a Broken leg would not have been seen quickly. A broken leg is an emergency and he would've been treated quickly and at no cost in Sweden. Your son's skin condition would've taken considerable time, most likely. The question is, is that something we can handle as a society if in the aggregate we're healthier. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal on a macro-level when the Swedes spend much less as a percentage of their economy on healthcare and are way healthier and happier if kids from rashes at a Wrestling match have to wait a bit but people with broken legs are able to get care quickly.

Also, the part I bolded, is much more believable than the Author's story. And, either way, your stop to check your son's skin rash at an urgent care facility is exactly the type of thing that conservatives always complain about...running unnecessary Cover-Your-Ass Tests at Urgent Care/Emergency Facilities.

And, If he wasn't speaking in today's dollars and was referring to something that happened a long time ago, 15 years as you said, and used the $200 figure then the article is even more misleading.

Manhattan Buckeye;1470803 wrote:"You hear similar horror stories in various op-eds about teh s0cialist healthcare systems in the UK and Canada and Hong Kong and Singapore etc. etc. etc. from time to time. And yet, surveys of the people in those countries by and large are very satisfied with their healthcare and are healthier and happier than in the United States."

I have no idea why anyone would compare European healthcare systems to Singapore unless it is making the point that Euros often travel to Singapore during their holidays to get quick and efficient care (not always cheap). Medical tourism is a huge industry in SE Asia due to all the Euros visiting. I'm not sure what is socialist about anything in Singapore given the percentage of residents that are foreign nationals. Every place I went took cash payment at the time of visit.

The government of Singapore imposes significant controls on the mode of production and payment for healthcare. That is socialism.

Singapore has a non-modified universal healthcare system where the government ensures affordability of healthcare within the public health system, largely through a system of compulsory savings, subsidies and price controls. Singapore's system uses a combination of compulsory savings from payroll deductions to provide subsidies within a nationalized health insurance plan known as Medisave.

Manhattan Buckeye;1470799 wrote:I'm not sure what is so controversial about anything the author wrote - any person that has lived in European socialized health systems understands that getting any type of healthcare that isn't life threatening is time consuming and inefficient. It can take months to get an annual health exam in some countries.

The author made it sound like a Broken Leg didn't qualify as the type of injury that would be seen quickly. That is incorrect. Also, the author's mythologizing about the power of market forces in healthcare is a dream at best. When you are going to the emergency room for a broken leg it is not like going through a Farmer's Market where there is price competition and doctor's bidding to straighten your leg with the patient thoughtfully considering the offers.

BoatShoes;1470914 wrote:The author made it sound like a Broken Leg didn't qualify as the type of injury that would be seen quickly. That is incorrect. Also, the author's mythologizing about the power of market forces in healthcare is a dream at best. When you are going to the emergency room for a broken leg it is not like going through a Farmer's Market where there is price competition and doctor's bidding to straighten your leg with the patient thoughtfully considering the offers.

The free market sets the price before you ever have to go to the doctor. Bidding isn't the only way for a natural low price to be established. But again, I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time. You aren't very well versed in economics as a whole, just in the theories you've been fed or felt like exposing yourself to.

Me?;1470921 wrote:The free market sets the price before you ever have to go to the doctor. Bidding isn't the only way for a natural low price to be established. But again, I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time. You aren't very well versed in economics as a whole, just in the theories you've been fed or felt like exposing yourself to.

In the real world, there are no free markets from healthcare providers! In order for a market to be free and competitive, the buyers and the sellers need to have relatively symmetrical information. The sellers of healthcare (doctors with M.D.'s and Ph.D's and specialized health knowledge) have way more information about the products/services being sold/delivered than the buyers of the goods and services. And, that's not to mention that most of the buyers aren't even close to homo economicus because they're often not thinking and acting economically and the providers are aware of this. The austrian in the article even acknowledges this when he talks about a doctor raising the price...in real life this is not an equilibrium price.

Like I said, not very well versed in economic theory.

Me?;1470954 wrote:Like I said, not very well versed in economic theory.

You're right, the average healthcare patients are profit maximizing agents, there aren't barriers to entry to becoming a healthcare provider, individual healthcare providers aren't able to set prices, etc. etc. I can see how you would think that. Cool.

"Singapore has a non-modified universal healthcare system where the government ensures affordability of healthcare within the public health system, largely through a system of compulsory savings, subsidies and price controls"

For citizens. For us ex-Pats (and there are literally millions of foreign nationals in Sing) we don't pay into the system and we don't expect to be subject to it. We paid every single hospital/dental visit with cash (well, credit card) and got reimbursed through our insurer.

Singapore might be considered "socialist" for the way it treats its citizens, but for a significant part of the population it is the most capitalist country in the world.