• Quote: John Goodman Singapore trolling

    I’ve often heard conservatives and libertarians praise Singapore as, broadly speaking, a model of health care policy that they embrace. Words like “free market” often get thrown around in this context. But it’s rarely clear to me what exactly it is about Singapore’s health care system that American conservatives favor. Oftentimes I think they’re simply confused.

    Matt Yglesias, Slate

    @afrakt (via phone)

    Share
    Comments closed
     
    • Clearly Matt should visit mu blog more often: here is the answer to his query: http://healthblog.ncpa.org/medisave-accounts-in-singapore/

    • Conservatives dont like taxes, but are OK with forced savings. And government regulated prices. At least in theory. My prediction is that when the GOP next wins elections they will do nothing except maybe repeal some laws. They just arent that interested in reform.

      Steve

    • “But it’s rarely clear to me what exactly it is about Singapore’s health care system that American conservatives favor.”

      It’s like commercials… the ones that say things like “it has the acceleration of a Lamborghini, the handling of a Porsche, the trunk space of a Volvo, and the price of a Kia.”

      American concervatives want the Kia.

    • I like the fact that in Singapore health care is really affordable – about 5% of GDP. And yes I know that comes with a lot of regulation and government interference with the market. But let me ask Matt and other progressives a question. Why are you so enamored with implementing a single payer system that will continue the transfer of wealth to the medical industry/profession?

      The other side of spending 18% of GDP on Health Care is that many of those receiving the payment are pretty happy – they drive very nice cars and live in very nice houses – and can afford to send their kids to great schools.

      They do so at our expense…

      • While fee-for-service incentives need some checks, the common denominator among countries that provide universal health insurance that produce better health outcomes at lower per capita cost than the U.S. — i.e., every wealthy country in the world — is that the government effectively controls pricing for healthcare services — whether via single payer, government-provided healthcare services, or price controls imposed on private insurers. Incentives are a problem, but providers’ pricing power in a fragmented U.S. market is a bigger problem.

        • “better health outcomes”

          Can you show proof of that point by using direct measurements where the outcome is disease based and based upon survival rates or rates of improvement for that disease? Too many of the other metrics have too much added political stuff to prove much of anything.

          • This is the specious argument that the US can’t be compared to other countries because our arteries are clogged with cholesterol and freedom.

            But to give an example from worldlifeexpectancy.org.

            The US has 15.16 deaths per 100,000 due to diabetes. Singapore only has 10.85.

            People in Singapore also live 4 years longer.

            • This demonstrates the superficiality some use when they quote statistics. One has to know what they are comparing and how the comparison is done. One has to know the variables.

              Lifespan is dependent upon many things that have little to do with a health care system.

              Example: If a typhoon kills 50% of a population lifespan will fall and the number dying from diabetes will fall as well.