Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

I might be guilty of starting a topic and then vanishing because I don't actually want to get into a discussion about this.

But every time people say "It works for Sweden!" I want to go check the population of Sweden and compare it to the U.S.

Sweden: ~9 million
USA: ~300 million

That, I think, is a major reason why we shouldn't try to have a centralized welfare state. That is too many people.

But it does work for Sweden.

link to question

And when you try to cram about a third of the US population into about a fourth of Sweden's area, you get Japan.

My friend served a mission in Denmark and when I asked him if the people seemed like the happiest people on earth, he responded, "They must have done the poll when they were all drunk."

I looked into it a bit more and what they describe as happiness is more what I describe as contentment. They can go to school for free for years until they decide what they want to do with their lives. And they are not as friendly as I was imagining. Their idea of a happy train ride is one where you don't have to say a word to anyone, even to grab their luggage. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-3 ... ontentBody

But hey, if it works for them, great! I guess I'm still just disillusioned that Denmark isn't as much like Disneyland as I was hoping.

Edited to include a link. Also, I realize that this comment is only loosely related to the topic.

C is for wrote:I might be guilty of starting a topic and then vanishing because I don't actually want to get into a discussion about this.

But every time people say "It works for Sweden!" I want to go check the population of Sweden and compare it to the U.S.

Sweden: ~9 million
USA: ~300 million

That, I think, is a major reason why we shouldn't try to have a centralized welfare state. That is too many people.

Why does size automatically break the model?

I think size breaks a lot of models simply because more people makes it harder to come to an agreement about anything.
Granted when you are talking about numbers in the millions I'm not sure how much it matters.

Unit of Energy wrote:I think size breaks a lot of models simply because more people makes it harder to come to an agreement about anything.
Granted when you are talking about numbers in the millions I'm not sure how much it matters.

Does that mean it couldn't work or just that we would never be able to agree to try it out?

The larger a group, the harder it is to make sure that everyone's needs are met. I think about trying to fit 300 million people in a model and all I can imagine is an enormous headache. All the bureaucracy we'd have to create, all the rules that would have to be in place because the population in America is so diverse and the needs of people in different regions are different...

Maybe if we were starting from the ground up, and didn't have to work with any current systems. But Unit brings up a good point that people aren't easy to get to agree on things, too...

C is for wrote:The larger a group, the harder it is to make sure that everyone's needs are met. I think about trying to fit 300 million people in a model and all I can imagine is an enormous headache. All the bureaucracy we'd have to create, all the rules that would have to be in place because the population in America is so diverse and the needs of people in different regions are different...

But don't we already have all of that bureaucracy and all of those rules in place when we're dealing with insurance companies? (Plus, each insurance company has its own rules and its own bureaucracy, so all of the rules change every time someone changes their job or changes insurance companies for other reasons.) And right now we have a system that we know for sure isn't meeting everyone's needs.

Also, I'd be curious to know what population the U.S. has that Sweden does not, when it comes to healthcare needs.

I just wish that insurances could all work together. Because of switching jobs and each job switching insurance companies, we went through 4 insurances in about 4 months. It was the biggest headache in the world. And our last insurance required proof of insurance over the last year, so we had to get proof of coverage for the other three. And btw, Aetna is ridiculous to work with when you're no longer a customer. I was not impressed. And one of those four insurances technically covered us, so we had no break in coverage, but they didn't pay for anything in the first 30 days of coverage, which no one thought important to tell us. During those thirty days, Dragon Baby had a pediatrician appointment AND stitches above her eye. It was a very expensive month (let's talk $500ish. Maybe more.) that should have only cost us $50. And now our 4th insurance has a deductible, and turns out, those are ridiculous to work with, too. I never know when I'm supposed to pay the full bill and when to just pay the co-pay.

The idea of one health care plan for everyone, no matter who you work for, is very, VERY appealing to me.

awww... we just switched to aetna

Whistler wrote:awww... we just switched to aetna

I had no qualms while we were with them. Just trying to work with them after we left.

Marduk wrote:Also, I'd be curious to know what population the U.S. has that Sweden does not, when it comes to healthcare needs.

Non-caucasians? Hoodie-wearers? Short people? I always feel like these debates about "populations" and "unmanageable diversity" have uncomfortable undertones.

Ha, DL, your story reminds me of my story recently.

As you may or may not have known, I have been going to quite a few doctors recently. I went to the ER back in February for a CT scan, which was supposedly not covered by insurance (no lab work is on my parents' plan). It totally was, and they got a bill for like $50. Nice!

But the ER trip, which was supposedly covered by insurance with a $150 co-pay, was billed in full to the sum of around $600ish.

Stupid.

Portia wrote:

Marduk wrote:Also, I'd be curious to know what population the U.S. has that Sweden does not, when it comes to healthcare needs.

Non-caucasians? Hoodie-wearers? Short people? I always feel like these debates about "populations" and "unmanageable diversity" have uncomfortable undertones.

Uncomfortable because they reference race? Which is significantly correlated with a bevy of health factors? People should not feel uncomfortable discussing race, particularly when it is related to value-neutral issues like higher blood pressure.

Portia wrote:

Marduk wrote:Also, I'd be curious to know what population the U.S. has that Sweden does not, when it comes to healthcare needs.

Non-caucasians? Hoodie-wearers? Short people? I always feel like these debates about "populations" and "unmanageable diversity" have uncomfortable undertones.

Actually Sweden's got a pretty significant immigrant population, particularly from countries such as Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Somalia.

Wired, I have no problem with discussing racial factors as they relate to health issues. What has yet to be correlated is why a certain healthcare model would be ill-equipped to answer issues specifically related to racial diversity.

Off-hand, I agree with you, but I haven't thought about it thoroughly (what factors servicing a more diverse population would pose.) My response is more toward the Portia's comment about being uncomfortable with those suggestions coming up -- I don't think it should make anyone uncomfortable so long as they are linked with actual effects.

(Some ways that a differing population could affect it, now that I am thinking about it -- if any racial particular racial group, we'll say asians, are pre-disposed to higher rates of high-cost health care that preventive measures can't alleciate, that would dramatically change how a country ought to structure its health care system.)

Should it? Perhaps. Would it? Unlikely.

As it is, women's health care costs are significantly higher than men's, as I will never have to give birth and need no birth control. (Perhaps this is off set by increased heart disease? I don't have the exact numbers.) At any rate, it is against the law in this country, and I would bet most other industrialized countries, to charge men and women different costs based solely on gender considerations. Race is the same.

I'm a little surprised anyone would think size doesn't matter. Would you be comfortable having the same rules and structure at a national level as are in place in your home? The government would fall apart within weeks, methinks. Yet I'd call my home pretty dang close to ideal, when it comes to rules and structuring. Same thinking applies for those who would like to see the national government run more like a municipality. Also, though I've little to back it up, I'd presume more socialistic setups thrive better in smaller settings. Mankind seems more willing to give when the recipients are closer to him.