私营医疗让行业缺乏创新,是时候做出改变了。
Private healthcare makes industries less innovative. It's time for change

原始链接: https://werd.io/private-healthcare-makes-industries-less-innovative-its-time-for-change/

最近的一项 West Health-Gallup 调查显示,四分之一的美国员工仅仅为了保留医疗保险而留在自己不喜欢的工作岗位上;对于患有慢性疾病的员工,这一比例更是高达 41%。 这种对雇主提供保险的依赖造成了所谓的“工作锁定”(job lock)现象,对经济产生了负面影响。由于员工被困在现有职位上,企业在提高工资或改善工作条件方面面临的压力较小。此外,该制度还抑制了创新,因为人们担心失去医疗保障,而不愿放弃现有职位去创业。 作者认为,当前的制度服务于私营保险公司的利益,却以牺牲员工利益和市场流动性为代价。通过对比美国模式与英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)等全民医保体系,文章指出,将医疗保险与就业脱钩,不仅能改善个人福祉,还能促进劳动力市场的竞争,并激发经济进步所需的创新。即使是一些自由意志主义团体也承认现状已从根本上失效,并认为向全民医保转型是一项必要的改革。

这篇 Hacker News 讨论探讨了美国将医疗保险与就业挂钩所带来的系统性问题。许多参与者认为,这种“工作锁定”(job lock)现象抑制了创新和劳动力流动,因为员工担心在换工作或创业时会失去保险或面临保险空窗期。 主要观点包括: * **信息缺失:** 美国体制被批评为“困惑垄断”(confusopoly),即定价不透明且福利各异,导致员工难以比较计划或进行有效协商。 * **历史遗留:** 贡献者指出,雇主资助的保险源于二战期间过时的税收政策和工资上限,这造就了一个僵化且缺乏竞争的市场。 * **意识形态分歧:** 虽然许多评论者主张通过全民医疗保健将保险与就业脱钩,但也有人对政府管理的系统(如加拿大的排队时间)表示怀疑,并倾向于支持以市场为导向的改革,如个人税收抵免。 * **系统性低效:** 参与者认为,由于企业将利润置于首位,它们往往会建立复杂且具有对抗性的流程来拒付索赔,从而导致巨大的行政开支,在未能改善健康状况的同时推高了成本。 总而言之,舆论普遍认为目前的模式造成了严重的经济胁迫,改革势在必行,但对于最佳路径尚未达成共识。
相关文章

原文

1 in 4 American workers stay in their jobs because of the healthcare. It suppresses wages and working conditions - and prevents innovators from heading out on their own.

Staying in a job for the health insurance? About 1 in 4 Americans do, a survey says, by Joseph Kim at NPR

This is a striking, but not necessarily surprising, figure from a new survey by the West Health-Gallup Center on Healthcare in America:

“A new report finds that nearly a quarter of workers who get health insurance through their jobs report staying in unwanted jobs for health insurance — a figure that's risen dramatically in the last five years.”

The figure rises to 41% of people with three or more chronic health conditions. The figure has risen wildly in part because Affordable Care Act subsidies were allowed to expire.

I’ll get the soapbox out of the way first: having spent around thirty years of my life in the UK before moving to the US, the thing I miss most is the NHS. It’s been treated like a political football since I left and is apparently a shell of its former self — not because the idea is bad and can’t work but because conservative politicians, some of whom have received funding from private healthcare companies, have deliberately sabotaged it. But it’s hard to explain the lack of fear of walking into a doctor’s office or a hospital. You know for a fact that there won’t be an onerous bill. You can just get seen. That security allowed me to found my first startup, which in turn has set the stage for my entire career.

If you’re in the US, you may have heard some less pleasant things about socialized healthcare: it turns out much of it was a deliberate disinformation campaign by private health insurers, which I think says a lot about how the whole American healthcare system actually works.

That soapbox out of the way, I also want to highlight how the private healthcare system creates perverse incentives for employers and dampens innovation.

If employees have freedom of movement between companies, the incentive for employers is to create the best working conditions possible: higher wages, great benefits, a nurturing working environment. If, on the other hand, some employees are effectively chained to their desks by their need to have healthcare, employers have less of a need to provide those things. As long as they provide a reasonable health plan, wages and working conditions are secondary. As the West Health-Gallup Center themselves assert, the effect is lower wages and worse work.

In turn, fewer innovators are empowered, which is a disaster for industries like news that desperately need innovation. Often, innovators will find themselves constrained by their existing employers for various reasons and want to leave to explore a new idea that has the potential to change their industry. (That was my experience leaving the university sector to build a social platform for learning, which was ultimately used by Ivy Leagues, non-profits, and governments around the world.) If they can’t because they’re tethered to employers who won’t greenlight their ideas, those innovations will never see the light of day.

So not only does socialized healthcare allow people to be healthier by removing the fear of going to the doctor in the first place, it improves wages, creates more competitive working conditions, and promotes innovation.

Even a representative for the Cato Institute — a libertarian think tank — has this to say in the piece:

“Favoring employer-sponsored health insurance creates coverage gaps, reduces income mobility, and is crying out for reform.”

When even the libertarians want reform, you know it’s a bad deal. We need a different healthcare system. While the libertarians would likely disagree, my vote — having experienced and enjoyed it for much of my life — is for universal healthcare. The only real downside to it is that a bunch of companies that have entrenched their positions taking advantage of ordinary people will be denied a little profit. Which, you know. Pardon me while I find my tiny violin.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com