Please don't take HN threads on generic tangents. This isn't a substantive response to the article; it just points towards a version of the same discussion people have been repeating for years.
Such massive generic topics are like black holes that suck in unsuspecting threads that fly too close. Solution: consciously steer clear.
Very rich people will do far better in a private or blended system than a country with only a public system. Your best approach would be to triage your own health requirements: (1) spend as much as needed on preventative & health components, (2) pay a retainer or monthly fee to a private health network, (3) pay cash immediately for any rare, critical or emergent needs. You can get #1 in lots of countries, #2 in fewer and #3 in a handful including but not restricted to the US. As a Canadian, if you are super-wealthy you need to likely leave the country for #3.
Countries with public health care have problems with health care as well. It is not a silver bullet. The incentives are different but it is still an incentive driven system.
Very true. But it seems these countries try to keep the system accessible and affordable for patients. The US system seems designed to keep profits for providers, instances and employers while the patient has to pay without having having any market power. From a cost and transparency perspective I think it would be hard to design a worse system than the US system.
For all the faults of the US system, one can get some of the best medical care in the world in the US. It is very clear there is a lot of waste and excess cost due to the reasons you mentioned, but it isn't so bad as it is made out.
