Universal health-care is within reach (everywhere except the US)

From the Economist (here): Universal health care, worldwide, is within reach

Excerpt:

So, why not the US? Where the average life-span is 4 years less than Europe but total Overhead Cost (per individual) of Health Care is twice that of Europe. See that here:


Because the Right wants to assure that the average annual income of a GP remains at $210K* a year ... ?

*See here: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Family and General Practitioners (GPs). Besides, in Universal Health-care, since it is operated by governments, medical fees are dictated-and-assumed by a central authority in order that ALL receive the care. (Not to worry, Doctors make a good living just as well regardless of where they practice because of their comparative rarity.)

 

That was a selection of fan fiction.

 

And yours one-liner sarcastic derision. (This is a debate-forum, not a Message Board.)

Moving right along ...

 

Have you ever worked in Health-care ?
In the U.S. ?
Are you even remotely familiar with how Health-care works here in the U.S. ???

 

watching this issue from outside the USA it appears that in regards to healthcare americans appear to be inflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect on a national level...with so many other countries demonstrating better outcomes with less money and still thinking their way is better... illogical.

 

Dunning-Kruger Effect: "In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability have illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is."

I have heard of instances where companies that simply could not compete with larger outfits allowed themselves to be bought-out by the latter because it had superior technology or patents?

I am not sure how prevalent these factors are, but I think that reducing the number of years before patents (for instance) are valid is probably a fine idea. Today they can extend to 20 years.

Moreover, there is a "patent-game" that is being played. That is (from here),

 

If it's so affordable than NGO's should be setting up universal healthcare systems in poor countries like Haiti.

 

Nope, I just go by the numbers - as do most economists. Have you noticed that you are in an Economics Debate-Forum?

The numbers you refuse to read tell the story - Americans are living in a privatized Health-care System that is the mostly costly in the world and its performance in terms of life-span is 3-years less than those countries most economically similar to the US. What is so confusing to you about that proven fact?

Given that privatized-healthcare cannot provide sufficient services to the nation as a whole at a reasonable cost, smarter countries have evolved National Healthcare Systems.

Because in the US healthcare is a free-market, and one that is deadly ... !

 

I have actually worked in Healthcare in the U.S. and have a bit more acumen than you do.
And your post is a regurgitating of statistics that inaccurately reflect the current situation in Healthcare here in the U.S.

 

Universal healthcare is easy. Just cut the quality down to Third World levels, and then offer partial payment vouchers for anyone who wants to pay for their own healthcare.

But because some people are so rigid, stubborn, unwilling to compromise, and demand the ideal of a sense of equality, you're never going to have universal healthcare.

This is probably also why the homeless crisis is never going to be dealt with.

A little hint: if the king won't give you what you want, try asking for something more modest.

We should be looking for the most cost-effective solutions, and those solutions may not bring up everyone to the standards you would have liked.

Now, going back to payment vouchers, here's an example of what I mean. Suppose the universal healthcare costs 1000 per person annually. Then hand out private vouchers for something like 700. Even though the private healthcare costs someone 2000. These vouchers are really important because otherwise it's like a tax on everyone who doesn't opt in the universal healthcare (which in this case is going to be really low quality).

 

Exactly.

Ethiopia, and Mexico and Peru are not the best examples, and Countries with so called FREE Health-care, compensate with very high Taxes.

 

The U.S. could outsource their healthcare to Mexico, for example.
Why put old people in expensive nursing homes in the U.S. when they can be sent over the border at a fraction of the cost?

Of course, they won't be able to sue the health provider for very much money if something goes wrong, but then again that's part of the reason healthcare costs in the U.S. are so expensive in the first place.

 

Messco ? Oh Noooooooo !
Not Messco !

 

OP, USA is a capitalist country. We have capitalist healthcare. In the old days healthcare was not run as big biz, now it is. We will most likely never have socialized healthcare. We don't know how to do to since we are a capitalist country.

What could be done is to have 2 tier healthcare. Capitalist for rich and free socialized for the poor. But it would take away from the capitalists healthcare and they won't go for it. Our politicians are incompetent and could never run a socialized healthcare system anyway.

Our best bet is to contract with China or Cuba to do out healthcare at .10 cents on the dollar. After they out in 10 years taking care of us, make them citizens.

 

Sure, China with deadly Sheetrock and poisonous Dog food, sure..... Just what we need.
Cuba ???
Why not North Korea ?

 

yeah let's make a relatively equal comparison...with industrialized 1st world countries...let's use Canada your immediate neighbor with nearly identical standards...US tax rates range from 10% to 39%, Canada 15% to 29% plus americans have many more allowable deductions the biggest being the Mortgage Interest Deduction...
"free" UHC isn't really free it's paid by taxes, but what Canadians pay in taxes americans pay more with private insurance...
So Canadians pay less, everyone gets equal treatment, and still have considerably longer average lifespans...personally and on an national level UHC makes better economic sense...

 

all the countries of western europe are capitalist countries as is canada... so how do they manage what you say can't be done?

 

Canada pays an exorbitant Fuel Tax.
Our adjusted lower life expectancy is NOT based on less effective Health Care, it is based on factors such as Tobacco use, improper Diet, Crime, use of illegal Drugs and abuse of prescribed Drugs, Suicide, Mental health issues, and other factors not seen in those other Countries.
Access to health-care is not the issue as much as people's attitudes to accessing it in preventive care and monumental obstacles of paperwork and details that should be eliminated by seamless paperless coverage.

Again, a Divorce from Politicizing is needed before anything productive is possible, it is not Socialist or Conservative or Communist or Liberal or Libertarian, It is People, that want Healthier productive and longer lives and that takes work as nothing in life is really ever free, someone pays for it somehow in one way or another, just as ignoring health issues has a cost too, a very high one.

Hypertension as a disease claims many victims is an example, many times undiagnosed in people over 50, and this is prevalent not for lack of health-care coverage, many people just do not see a Physician until they are actually ill, and then, having no primary care, will access care by means of Hospital Emergency departments at a greater cost especially if they are not in a health-care plan of some sort.

We have had Medicaid and Medicare here in the U.S. with additional parts to Medicare added to assist with additional costs.
So far most of the people involved in discussions, Politicians and law makers, have very little clue as to the importance of a re-structure of health-care as it relates to the United States of America and it's unique Population of over 300 Million People.

I have been crafting a health-care reform, and it has been a long time effort, and it addresses valid concerns on many fronts hitherto unaddressed by anyone.

I start with one question, why are Politicians, Senators, Members of Congress, Entitled to Premium health-care after such short terms in Office, over those that Elected them into Office, and have as little regard for the People that ellected them as the French Aristocracy had for the Peasant underclass, almost the attitude that such is too good for us.
This attitude is actually and truly Bipartisan, as no Political Party has addressed this concern.

Health-care must first be de-polarized Politically speaking, before anything productive can actually take place, because EVERYONE needs Health-care, and to begin with pointing dirty sticks at any leaning helps nobody, and everybody loses.

 

USA would save soooo much money if we had Medicare for All

 

Very True Ron, and I agree, however, it is also Medicaid / Medicare that needs to be combined and also needs to be seamless coverage instantly beggining at birth, and ending at time of dysfunction, unexpired.

Pediatric Dentistry overlooked until Adult problems as Dental Care is fundamental to good Health and far underestimated as far as good Cardiovascular Pulmonary Health.

 

Doctors get rich in America, why do you want them to become poor???

 

I have done some research into this in the past, Cuba has a pretty good healthcare system considering how poor their population is.
Then again, one part of this may be because people in that country don't have a lot of options and the doctors barely get paid anything, in many cases making less than taxi drivers. Nonetheless the education is completely free so there are still people who choose to study for so long to go into the field, despite the lack of economic reward.

Now, in the U.S. the majority of the problem of high medical costs are not because of how much money is going to the doctors. Nevertheless, there is a bottleneck in medical education, and an easy way to better serve lower income communities would be to expand the number of graduates going through medical school and provide more training. This could possibly also involve paying them a living wage while they are going through training.

 

The adjusted Mortality rate is still far higher in Cuba as the lack of Advanced Oncology services, and Critical care for COPD, A-fib and accute asthma and advanced NEO Nate services as well as pediatric advanced life support and Advanced cardiac life support, transplant teams, are virtually non existent.

 

Nevertheless, if you have a cheap and easily treatable condition they will treat it.

 

Which is useless as aspirin if you are already dead, In Cuba, you are already dead if it is anything of a truly serious nature as a ruptued aneurysm, that kills even in America.

Cheaper is not really better if you are dead.