http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/sweden-is-evolving-to-private-healthcare/

Because the huge public system in Sweden forces the private system to operate competitively. They also only provide services which are typically low risk with high profit margins. We see it all the time in the UK, patients are happy to splash some cash to jump a queue - it's fine, it's their money - but no private service will take you if there's a chance they'll lose money on you.

 

The private system simply cannot compete with a state system for cost effective health care delivery. If the UK or Sweden spent (per capita) half of what the US spends per capita on healthcare we'd be laughing. As it is your government already spends more on health than the UK government does (per capita) and achieves nearly bollocks all with it as it's sucked into the profit margins of your insurance companies.

 

Fun story, which insurance policy do you think provides the best quality adjusted and disability adjusted life years in the US per $ spent? 

It really should be a no-brainer that a healthily mixed system is the best.

 

 

Because the huge public system in Sweden forces the private system to operate competitively.

Don't you mean they have the freedom to operate competitively? 

If Wall Street can be funded publically, why not health care?

basic healthcare by the government, want added perks beyond normal life helth issues? Fork over something extra $$.

 

Because the huge public system in Sweden forces the private system to operate competitively.

Don't you mean they have the freedom to operate competitively?

 

No, everyone has the freedom to operate competitively from bupa in the UK to blue cross and blue shield association in the US. Here patients can wait ~6 months and receive the non urgent hip replacement, or pay and have it done in a couple of weeks (urgent hip ops are always done within a few days assuming patient it fit for surgery on the NHS) only for bupa a total hip replacement with inpatient stay and after care is $6580 (at current exchange) and the average replacement in the US is $41000 for the same service. Now, you tell me which of those is acting more competitively.

So they have freedom to operate, but are forced into keeping their charges down? Price control? I see what you mean now. That's not really freedom to compete, it's forced to compete, just like you said.

Competition forces price downwards, not upwards.

US markets are competing thou, competing about howmuch they can pay their CEO >_>

Wouldn't want to have the US system. Long live the NHS. Has its flaws, but it really is awesome, I mean they gave me a job and all. (Must make them idiots ;p)