4/ Is the US healthcare market rational with those 2 qualifications? (others free ride, there are universal distortions where the US is not special).
-
-
15/ Charismatic diseases are (Carsean) finite-game diseases where there is such a thing as a clear win condition (or escalation sequence thereof) marketable as a "cure narrative." This does not mean the condition is necessarily curable, just that there's an tree of things to try
Show this thread -
16/ By contrast, infinite game diseases/conditions that require open-ended care relationships are a systemic blindspot. They are hard to privatize, and a system that only targets what is privatizable tends to just give up and let sufferers just live awful lives till they die
Show this thread -
17/ Again, just an observation. Draw your own conclusions about whether tradeoffs made by other countries are better or worse. The point is, "the US has the best healthcare" is a very narrow claim: "best healthcare that a system based on privatizing diseases can deliver"
Show this thread -
18/ Equally, resist the temptation to write off advances made by other countries simply because they aren't accompanied by the innovation theater of the US: patents, big fortunes, miraculous-seeming outcomes for a few.
Show this thread -
19/ Non-private innovations LOOK different: large-scale assembly line cataract operations at "eye camps" in India for example. Or of course, immunization/vaccination.
Show this thread -
20/ The US used to lead on those fronts too about a century ago (eg. Rockefeller foundation work on eliminating hookwork in the US south), but now mostly that's left to "poor" countries.
Show this thread -
21/ tldr of the thread: Don't buy into naive arguments that the US healthcare system is "best in the world" and if your experience of it sucks, it's only because because "other countries free-ride" and you didn't buy enough Big Pharma shares.
Show this thread -
22/ Addendum to point 12: In some cases a net negative societal health condition may be "negatively privatizable" where some other sector (sugar, tobacco) has a stronger incentive to keep the condition alive than the healthcare sector does to cure it for profit.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
don't forget relatively short time horizon. If it's an intervention that would save lives or $$ but 10 years in the future, no way will it be paid for by an insurance company.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Isn't open-ended care more profitable? E.g. patients using statins or antidepressants for years.
-
No because it mostly falls to family members and low-paid care labor, and there’s little room for expensive medications or surgical interventions.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.