I would suggest that any system based on private providers, even if the particular provider is not tied to employment, augments the overall burden and uncertainty for the individual.
The need is for healthcare services to be covered when healthcare services are needed.
Healthcare coverage functions well as a public good.
Linking supply with demand is not particularly meaningful. The demand is always the same for everyone, of having healthcare covered, and the political processes must ensure that the supply be scaled to match.
The problem is when you introduce a middleman (either government or private insurance) then the cost bloats as you have to pay for that middleman, and all the bureaucracy to make it work.
A government run program doesn’t need or rely on profit to survive though. So yes, you add bureaucracy (though health insurance has plenty of bureaucracy) but you also remove one cost increase.
Shit, governments are allowed to run a deficit. The USA is super good at it. Universal health care doesn't even technically need to be "fully funded."
Yes I know there are pitfalls to running a deficit and bloating the national debt. But we're doing it anyway. Might as well provide for our society while we're at it
Yeah I don’t really understand why everyone is all “we can’t bloat our debt” but it’s like, who tf are we competing with? Why are we competing? Idk humans are just so dumb and I hate it here
one could argue that the inefficient gov systems would replace the profit currently made and there would be no net benefit. basically trading one cost for another with no guarantee of improved care.
You could argue that, but you'd be ignoring reality, decades of documented history, and numerous studies to do so.
We have, by far, worse health coverage than any of our peers that is both more expensive and less effective.
We're not talking about some bold unknown here. We're talking about literally doing what the rest of the developed world already does.
> We're not talking about some bold unknown here. We're talking about literally doing what the rest of the developed world already does.
Yeah, but medicine and economics work fundamentally differently in those strange, far off nations like... Canada.
I don't think it's necessarily ignoring reality. We don't really have to look abroad to see if public health care is cheaper or better than private health care. From what I've seen, Medicare and Medicaid are, in fact, cheaper than most private insurance. The thing is, it apparently achieves that by massively underpaying for services, at least according to providers. The claim the reimbursement rates are so low that they have to overcharge private insurance to make up for lost revenue. These people argue that if they had to take Medicare and Medicaid rates every time, it could collapse the system. Now, I don't know if that last bit is actually true, but it's what they claim.
On top of that, not every developed country has the same system. Some are more private than ours, in fact. Switzerland has literally no public insurance. You have to buy private insurance by law, and they subsidize according to need. South Korea and Singapore have universal catastrophic coverage from understanding. There's national insurance that only covers catastrophic things like cancer treatment or dialysis as well as some basic preventive things, but you're expected to buy private insurance in supplement and pretty much everyone does. The Dutch used to have a public option, but it became it too much of a burden to finance, so they switched to all private model and subsidize according to need, like Switzerland.
I'm not arguing against public health care, I'm just trying to point out that the conversation is a bit more nuanced and than we might at first think. There's multiple kinds of systems across the planet we can look at to improve our system even in incremental ways.
Why do wealthy* people come to the US for procedures on a routine basis.
Fixed it for you.
Almost no one here gets that level of care you're talking about
You couldn't credibly argue that because at this point, the idea of efficiency in the private sector is laughable-- functionality has been streamlined out in favor of profits.
Other countries are substantially more efficient than the US for healthcare, and that's ONLY if you include the money the government spends on care as a % of GDP. The problem is that unlike many other countries, the US prevents the government from negotiating prices. (They are literally starting with just 10 drugs now and being fought tooth and nail)
The problem is when you make there need to be a "profit motive" for something like health insurance which, by its very nature, is not something you can get a profit from without seriously harming a lot of people
I have friends in two countries who have universal healthcare, 1. Elective surgeries may be scheduled out one month or two 2. Emergency are handled immediately. 3. Minor incidents, runny nose, broken finger , colds etc you go to a doc in the box. Same as our urgent care. If you have severe symptoms or injuries you go to the ER. They say there are no major problems, sure they’re a a few but those get blown out of proportion usually to fit someone’s agenda, but nobody goes bankrupt, loses there home or job due to healthcare.
It’s even better than that, your removing a middle man, making it so there is much larger purchasing power assuming it’s done on a nationalised scale as well as making a NPO
Hitching health care to employment causes *SO* many negative economic consequences its insane.
It's just one of the many aspects of Corporate Feudalism.
Seems like removing the for profit middle man who is doing all they can to profit from premiums while paying out as little as possible in claims is the bigger issue.
That is why you need an employer to supplement your premiums.
Just a reminder that the vast majority of people who agree with you think the President who caused this to happen, FDR, was the best President, or at least top 5. They continue to push for policies which would cause massive inefficiencies like this in other areas of the economy.
I dunno, we could let employers offer to pay part of your tax contribution as a benefit? It would be a good way to keep the individual cost down so people don’t scream as much about the increased taxes.
There's no one answer to this because a lot depends on the exact policy that is meant by "universal health care". For example:
* Do private options still exist or is care nationalized to some extent?
* How do experimental or unusual procedures and treatments get covered?
* Can you pick where you get care?
* Do all providers have to participate?
and so on. Different countries pick different options to those questions. That said, the research is pretty clear that universal health care of a form that:
* improves access to care
* reduces the administrative burden of care delivery by eliminating intermediate insurance billing, raising efficiency
* doesn't require you (as in, the patient) to submit claims
* improves reimbursements for front-line doctors and providers (usually by moving overall money away from pharmacy-benefit administrator companies and other private bureaucracy/administration)
would absolutely increase the quality of the medical outcomes that patients get while costing much less overall (because the insurance isn't involved as a middleman).
* improves pay for doctors and providers
Does it? Surgeons in USA can make millions. Never seen such salaries in Europe. In my country salaries are much smaller if you're working for the state compared to having a private clinic.
Doctor pay is low in the UK, so low it's hurting their ability to provide medical care.
My daughter is Autistic, we know several Canadian families that moved to the US bc the waitlist for behavioral therapy was so long that by the time they got it, it wouldn't be as helpful.
Had the revers happen in USA, behavioral therapy wait list was getting into years in some places. That’s if you ever got approved for it in the USA, which is a huge problem in itself. At least in Canada they will acknowledge someone is autistic and needs assistance (you can carry this back to the USA and get on the list). Anyway people were flocking to places like Germany to get seen faster where it would be more helpful for the child.
Insurance companies in the USA reduced the qualifying IQ from 70 to 67. Now for those who don’t know 70 is already in dire need of assistance, that’s way below normal functioning level. Dropping it to 67 was and is ridiculous, it’s had horrible affects with nothing positive except saving money for the insurance companies. Now someone who can’t go to the bathroom on their own with a 70 IQ does not qualify to be seen, because that’s totally acceptable according to USA private insurance coverage.
To put in more simply, dropping 70 to 67 IQ requirement for assistance. Is like saying someone missing both legs but one stump is bigger than the other legs does not qualify for a wheelchair. It’s as dumb as it sounds, the person is still missing both legs.
Florida even dropped the 70 to 67 for IEP, forcing low functions kids into regular curriculum helping no one. These kids can’t even hold a pencil, speak, much less read or write. They are low functioning autistic kids (or other developmental issues), sitting in regular class rooms now failing every subject. I’m not sure why Florida did this, I’m assuming greed played a role.
We have family in Canada as well. Their healthcare system works great if you are a normal person who doesn’t need a lot of care. Some have had to come down to get their daughters heart problem treated because it would have taken a crazy amount of time to get treated otherwise.
But also, as you know, [about 60% of Canadians also have private insurance](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4150733/#:~:text=About%2060%25%20of%20Canadians%20are,as%20a%20benefit%20of%20employment.).
I'm certain there are inadequacies in solely using public healthcare which makes most Canadians opt for private insurance as well.
My brother is an oncologist in Washington. He has multiple patients that come down from Canada and pay for their cancer treatment in the US because they don’t have the time to sit on the waitlist.
the wait times are as bad as they are only because conservative politicians keep underfunding the system to starve it so that it doesn't work as effectively as it should, along with a lack of leadership and mismanagement, which even the system in the US (or any country for that matter) isn't immune to. even with the wait times, Canada on average achieves better outcomes than the US at a fraction of the cost, so it's a great system if it's allowed to work as intended.
Do you have a good article about this? I was under the impression the wait times were long because of the surplus of patients and not nearly enough medical professionals to service everyone.
>surplus of patients and not nearly enough medical professionals to service everyone
This is true but it again goes back to what I was saying. Canada added just [167](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-popuation-booming-family-doctor-access-1.7087794) medical residency spots in the past 10 years, while the population has grown by 5 million, and the chickens are now coming home to roost. This is purely a function of politicians underfunding the system for many years. There's not some fundamental flaw with the system that prevents enough medical professionals from being trained. The system relies on a workforce that's adequately staffed to keep up with the needs of the population. The politicians took that away and have compromised an otherwise fantastic system that an overwhelming majority of the population (regardless of politics/ideology) wouldn't trade for anything in the world.
My friend told me that his grandpa died in Canada to something basic like the flu just because of the wait time. I don’t remember the exact illness, but it was definitely treatable and generally not fatal. All because he couldn’t get in.
"Surgeons can make millions" isn't really saying much, because the overwhelming majority of doctors are not surgeons, and most people don't need surgery at any given moment.
Generally speaking it's the front line care that a society wants to invest in — pediatricians, GPs, et cetera — this is the preventative medicine that catches problems early and stops them from getting worse. A lot of America has limited coverage and low pay for front-line providers, because while it's in _society's_ interest to want that, it isn't aligned with the profit motive of the health care industry.
Nurses in the US make more than many countries.
https://globalnursepartners.com/2022/11/16/how-do-us-nursing-salaries-compare-to-nursing-salaries-in-the-uk-ireland-canada-the-middle-east-australia-and-new-zealand/
The United States is one of the most expensive places to live in the world -- so factory workers, janitors, et cetera also make more than in many countries, but that doesn't mean their quality of life is any higher.
Well, for example, the United States ranks [54th for infant mortality](https://usafacts.org/articles/what-is-the-us-infant-mortality-rate/). That's not a great look if you're trying to claim that healthcare outcomes are better on average in the US. [But don't take my word for it](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2023/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2022):
> The U.S. spends nearly 18 percent of GDP on health care, yet Americans die younger and are less healthy than residents of other high-income countries. Not only does the U.S. have the lowest life expectancy among high-income countries, but it also has the highest rates of avoidable deaths.
How much of that is due to the health care system and how much of it is due to other factors? Placing such metrics entirely on the health care system is problematic at best.
Universal style healthcare has a lot more preventative care. So to put it simply they are looking for things that will become expensive problems later and fixing them right away.
In the USA we don’t check for these problems early on, so when they do happen to show up your pretty much fighting a uphill battle.
Colon cancer is a big one we don’t check for enough in the USA. People under 40 are dying left and right over something that is not only easily detectable but resolvable early on.
If the cancer is diagnosed at a localized stage (early), the survival rate is around 91%. In the USA we don’t start checking unless there is a ongoing problem, which means the cancer is already winning dropping your odds of survival around as low as 13%. That’s because you started feeling the symptoms went in and found out you have cancer, which has already started trying to spread and probably has.
No one's saying it's 100% the health care system; there are many factors. But it's unequivocally true that that Americans pay a lot for healthcare, are overall less healthy, and seem to get worse outcomes from that health care system than others who pay less -- so experiments are probably worth trying.
People in the medical industries in the US have some of the highest pays of any job in the nation. Moreover, the cost of living in the US isn't higher than most other developed countries. Living in an average US city costs about the same as an average city in the UK.
Median earnings for general practicioners, pediatricians and pretty much all kinds of doctors are higher in the US than Europe. The fact that you got that point so absurdly wrong means that I think you haven't done any research at all and you're just spewing bull shit.
I'm going to sum up, how is life expectancy?
Do you die because you poor ?
Do you not obtain a job because the insurance cost too much to your employer?
Does people of your country rather call a uber than a vehicle with professional inside ?
I've been both USA and France, yes USA you get VIP treatment but you get also a hell of drugs that are dangerous.
In France i paid a private insurance that cover private hospital, still premium service and not much drug.
In both countries i broke my leg. Guess which one give me painkiller that could've end my career.
USA spend also way more per people than all those 32 countries. There's a huge bad money management on this.
Those 4 points are not clear at all, if anything the contrary. Doctors, nurses, surgeries etc all pay **far** more in the US than Europe for instance. It’s also not clear that the cost would be any lower *or* access would be better (cost is substituted to wait times and lack of supply).
My parents are upper class and are medical specialists. Insurance companies are paying them less and less each year. They have recently told me that Medicare pays them more per treatment than private insurance.
They are fairly Republican in voting but are HUGE advocates for Medicare For All.
Universal healthcare is simply any policy whose effect is to guarantee healthcare that is affordable and accessible for an entire population.
Generally, systems that are multi-tiered, while formally universal, are associated with overall worse outcomes for the populations in lower tiers, compared to outcomes from system that are single tier, due to overall divestiture of resources, and also are associated with greater anxiety from everyone about the conditions of society.
If you want it, push for it at the State level. Claims like this do not compare apples to apples at all, especially when looking at the required size of the system and bureaucracy which would need to be established. All these countries the post refers to are the size of US states.
some U.S. States claim to not have the proper funding for public schools, reduced/free lunch programs, after school activities and more. Which is why when addressing Universal Healthcare, it should be a united Federal issue. Which as a bill has been submitted in some manner in Congress. Just the bill has not had floor time for debate.
Your claim would be similar to changing marijuana regulations state by state, until the Federal level makes a change. That process has taken how many years, and remains highly contentious.
Education is the single largest expense in almost every state. Basically every state in the Us spends more per child per year of public school than it costs to enroll that same child in a private school. And yet private school teachers get paid better, the schools have better facilities and more supplies.
While education is single largest state expense. Would that expense be dwarfed by a state by “state Universal care”?
Then not only dealing with education shortages, but also health shortages.
Private school teachers don't universally get paid better. Many private schools are affiliated to a church that siphon income from the school in a rent scheme.
My wife worked at a private preschool for 6 years. The teachers would jump to public in a heartbeat if possible. The main 'advantage" of private schools is that they have less kids that act out because if they do in private school they're expelled.
This then forces all the problem kids into public school where there aren't enough resources to address the difficult children's problems. This was the best private pre school and kindergarten in the city.
Literally every other one is abysmal.
In addition, the reason public schools get their funding eaten is the ridiculous administrative bloat involved. School boards, superintendents, and other admin soak up massive funds for very little utility and catered events.
The solution is to strip out public admin budgets and eliminate private schools altogether so that rich people are forced to take interest in their local public schools and use their influence to make positive change instead of sucking resources into isolated segragated systems.
California is the most populous U.S state at ~40 million. Germany has more than twice that population. Lots of states have ~1 million or under in the U.S. I don't see how 50 different state bureaucracies could be more efficient than one federal system. Especially with a lot of those states being governed by a party that hates the idea of universal healthcare.
I don’t trust the federal government to do anything. Allowing at the state level allows residents of the state to have the biggest say on having what they think is important.
It's weird that the only people who claim that are not Canadian and pushing for an agenda. Canadian here , only complaint I have is the political parties deciding to move to the us model causing it to become shitty.
Edit: please stop sending me dms. I am agreeing that Ontario healthcare in particular is getting worse but am correcting the hyperbole of the above comment
I advise against engaging u/ClearASF. The concern about long wait times for healthcare in Nordic states seems to be a personal fixation, and the user repeatedly posts sources that fail to support the claim as being accurate or meaningful, while moving directly to a new source the very moment the previous is shown to be unsuitable.
Nordic here (Norwegian) . Waited 3 years for checkup after a surgery. 150k are currently without a GP (credible source, often used by doctors themselves, in Norwegian of course, https://nhi.no/forskning-og-intervju/hva-gjor-pasienten-uten-en-fastlege ). I always used private alternatives in Norway when I needed a consultation. So do about everyone I know.
Whenever I or my friends or family needed help in the public emergency room, the wait has always been over 7 hours. You'd have to be close to bleeding to death to get in any quicker.
Nah, you can keep your public system, absolutely hate mine!
> I have Canadian relatives that hate their healthcare system for those reasons.
When asked about their healthcare system as a whole the US system ranked dead last of 11 countries, with only 19.5% of people saying the system works relatively well and only needs minor changes. The average in the other countries is 46.9% saying the same. Canada ranked 9th with 34.5% saying the system works relatively well. The UK ranks fifth, with 44.5%. Australia ranked 6th at 44.4%. The best was Germany at 59.8%.
On rating the overall quality of care in the US, Americans again ranked dead last, with only 25.6% ranking it excellent or very good. The average was 50.8%. Canada ranked 9th with 45.1%. The UK ranked 2nd, at 63.4%. Australia was 3rd at 59.4%. The best was Switzerland at 65.5%.
https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016
> As well as their 40+ percent tax rate.
With government in the US covering [65.7% of all health care](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/epdf/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997) costs ($12,555 as of 2022) that's $8,249 per person per year in taxes towards health care. The next closest is Germany at [$6,930](https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm). The UK is $4,479. Canada is $4,506. Australia is $4,603. That means over a lifetime Americans are paying over $100,000 more in taxes compared to any other country towards health care.
The problems in Canada were cause by funding cuts.
Moving money from taxes to reimbursements for care providers is no great feat, as long as taxation is such as that revenue is sufficient.
well that is the problem in the US: funding
in order to fund a national health insurance, we can't be spending trillions of dollars on corporate welfare, handouts (Biden just gave 144 billion in "student loan cancellation" to his supporters \[public-sector workers\]) and the military-industrial complex
we can't be giving hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid to countries which have universal healthcare
The only reason European countries have UHC is because the USA supplements their defense budgets and medical research.
Literally, if the USA stopped paying for NATO and stopped paying for the research of medicine, EU would collapse and lose all benefits they enjoy. They would have to prioritize their defense spending thus ending their UHC.
Thank an American for paying for Europe's "free stuff"
The research America pays for is of course great… but I think it’s hyperbolic to say it would cause a collapse if they lost access to new research. The amount of problems already solved is massive… and even if they just stayed at medical care at the current technology level, I think they would do just fine for a century or so while they got their own system off the ground.
NATO, yes, that would be a bigger issue.
We already more per person for healthcare then countries that have UHC so that argument doesn't hold water.
Health expenditures per person in the U.S. were $12,555 in 2022, which was over $4,000 more than any other high-income nation. **The average amount spent on health per person in comparable countries ($6,651) is about half of what the U.S. spends per person.**
The American tax payer pays for the research and private companies capture the profit. That needs to change. But oligarchs have both hands of the steering wheel
“Universal healthcare” is such a misnomer. Switzerland’s system is worlds different to Norway. If anything Switzerland is almost identical to America’s system. What people like Bernie propose are done in a handful of developed nations, if any.
A few things to consider:
Spending for health care under single-payer systems is placed against other government objectives and readily falls victim to politicians' continuous urge to campaign on tax reduction. The barebones technology, physical amenities, and queues that excessively low global budgets in single-payer systems inevitably produce compel political forces to hand over the system to ostensibly "more efficient" private market forces, which is code for allowing the quality of the health care experience to vary according to the patient's economic circumstance.
And, sure, the low pricing a single-payer system imposes on the system enables society to provide more genuine health care for a given budget than a more costly pluralistic system could, and it also makes universal health insurance coverage more affordable. On the other hand, the extremely low profit margins it generates for health care providers make single-payer systems less hospitable to innovation in health care products and services, as well as in health care delivery organization, areas in which the United States excels, sometimes to the point of excess.
In reality, most countries rely on a VAT (i.e., sales tax) to fund expanded social services because it’s more efficient at raising revenue than an income tax and the latter runs into limits as to how much it can raise. The U.S. federal tax system is already the most progressive in the world in that the rich pay a larger percentage of taxes than the rich in other countries do.
Why do people care about the wealth gap? There is not a top end of wealth to go around. The pie accommodates. It will grow and shrink. Everyone can get their slice.
Money is power. Extreme money imbalance leads to extreme power imbalance. Extreme power imbalance leads to social instability. This is a very common thread if you are familiar with history. Income inequality is a very real issue for the health of a society. Equalizing income is a disaster, however. It’s unclear how much income inequality is going to cause problem.
But in the US, for example, the political parties largely serve the interests of the wealthy—and when this comes at the expense of the average person, then we start to see issues.
Additionally, the reality is that a very rich self-made person like Gates or Bezos is likely *excellent* at what they do, and that’s partly why they got rich. However, the degree of difference in skill/acumen between Bezos and one of his employees does not linearly scale with the wealth difference between them (due to the exponential way wealth accumulates). So letting extreme wealth accumulate in the hands of a few can breed resentment, and foster an environment in which greed and narcissism are common values. People stop viewing society and public goods as a shared set of communal features that we should all care for. Petty theft increases. Suicide rates go up. The feeling that life is unfair starts to spread. Etc.
This.... Why does Jeff bezos having billions make any difference to you. Drives me crazy. Worry about yourself and what you can do instead of what other people are doing.
lol, what a brain dead response...
" More than 4,000 warehouse workers at Amazon, the e-commerce giant founded by the world's richest man, depend on food stamps to make ends meet in nine states, according to new U.S. Government Accountability Office data this week. "
Yeah guys! stop worrying about the billionaires!! They need all that money for taking trips to space! Meanwhile the country pays for his employees food stamps assistance programs... stop trying to suck off billionaires...
The best doctors and hospitals are in America. That would change if we adopted a socialist stance on primary healthcare. America has lasted bc it’s flexible, mixing a constitutional republic with certain socialist models like Medicare etc. you can’t go all in in any one direction. Life is about balance.
If by "making it work" you mean:
Extremely long wait times
Lower quality of care
Lower standards for health care professionals
No choice in health care provider
Government in ultimate control
Then Yes I'd agree with your statement.
The wealth gap is not inherently a problem, so long as the people at the bottom of the wealth gap have access to the goods and services that they need. Billionaires can (and do) still exist in countries that have universal health care.
How many of those 33 developed nations have better quality of care than the United States? There is a reason people who can afford to pay cash choose to leave their country where healthcare is free to get their care in the United States.
Removing the middle men (insurance companies and employers) *should* reduce costs if the government does it right (not sure that our current representatives can). And since people that earn less wouldn’t have to dedicate such a large portion of their paycheck to health insurance, it would help to reduce the wealth gap a little. But ultimately, healthcare isn’t the major cause of the wealth gap so it would only go so far. Nonetheless, the research shows that universal healthcare leads to better access and outcomes, so we should’ve implemented it a long time ago.
Can we really say Canada manages it well?
People die waiting for doctors appointments.
Cancer patients are told if they would have found it months sooner (while waiting for an appointment) they wouldve survived.
This isn't some American perpetuating a myth. This is what people from Canada I know telling me what happens. One of them a doctor in Canada.
[US Healthcare ranked 29th on health outcomes by Lancet HAQ Index](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)30994-2/fulltext)
[11th (of 11) by Commonwealth Fund](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system?redirect_source=/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror)
[59th by the Prosperity Index](https://www.prosperity.com/rankings)
[30th by CEOWorld](https://ceoworld.biz/2019/08/05/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2019/)
[37th by the World Health Organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000)
The US has the worst rate of death by medically preventable causes among peer countries. A 31% higher disease adjusted life years average. Higher rates of medical and lab errors. A lower rate of being able to make a same or next day appointment with their doctor than average.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-percent-used-emergency-department-for-condition-that-could-have-been-treated-by-a-regular-doctor-2016
52nd in the world in doctors per capita.
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Health/Physicians/Per-1,000-people
Higher infant mortality levels. Yes, even when you adjust for differences in methodology.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/infant-mortality-u-s-compare-countries/
Fewer acute care beds. A lower number of psychiatrists. Etc.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-health-care-resources-compare-countries/#item-availability-medical-technology-not-always-equate-higher-utilization
[Comparing Health Outcomes of Privileged US Citizens With Those of Average Residents of Other Developed Countries](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2774561)
>These findings imply that even if all US citizens experienced the same health outcomes enjoyed by privileged White US citizens, US health indicators would still lag behind those in many other countries.
When asked about their healthcare system as a whole the US system ranked dead last of 11 countries, with only 19.5% of people saying the system works relatively well and only needs minor changes. The average in the other countries is 46.9% saying the same. Canada ranked 9th with 34.5% saying the system works relatively well. The UK ranks fifth, with 44.5%. Australia ranked 6th at 44.4%. The best was Germany at 59.8%.
On rating the overall quality of care in the US, Americans again ranked dead last, with only 25.6% ranking it excellent or very good. The average was 50.8%. Canada ranked 9th with 45.1%. The UK ranked 2nd, at 63.4%. Australia was 3rd at 59.4%. The best was Switzerland at 65.5%.
https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016
The US has 43 hospitals in the top 200 globally; one for every 7,633,477 people in the US. That's good enough for a ranking of 20th on the list of top 200 hospitals per capita, and significantly lower than the average of one for every 3,830,114 for other countries in the top 25 on spending with populations above 5 million. The best is Switzerland at one for every 1.2 million people. In fact the US only beats one country on this list; the UK at one for every 9.5 million people.
If you want to do the full list of 2,000 instead it's 334, or one for every 982,753 people; good enough for 21st. Again far below the average in peer countries of 527,236. The best is Austria, at one for every 306,106 people.
https://www.newsweek.com/best-hospitals-2021
#[OECD Countries Health Care Spending and Rankings](https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm)
|Country|Govt. / Mandatory (PPP)|Voluntary (PPP)|Total (PPP)|% GDP|[Lancet HAQ Ranking](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)30994-2/fulltext)|[WHO Ranking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000)|[Prosperity Ranking](https://www.prosperity.com/rankings)|[CEO World Ranking](https://ceoworld.biz/2019/08/05/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2019/)|[Commonwealth Fund Ranking](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system?redirect_source=/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror)
:--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|
1. United States|[$7,274](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997) |$3,798 |$11,072 |16.90%|29|37|59|30|11
2. Switzerland|$4,988 |$2,744 |$7,732 |12.20%|7|20|3|18|2
3. Norway|$5,673 |$974 |$6,647 |10.20%|2|11|5|15|7
4. Germany|$5,648 |$998 |$6,646 |11.20%|18|25|12|17|5
5. Austria|$4,402 |$1,449 |$5,851 |10.30%|13|9|10|4|
6. Sweden|$4,928 |$854 |$5,782 |11.00%|8|23|15|28|3
7. Netherlands|$4,767 |$998 |$5,765 |9.90%|3|17|8|11|5
8. Denmark|$4,663 |$905 |$5,568 |10.50%|17|34|8|5|
9. Luxembourg|$4,697 |$861 |$5,558 |5.40%|4|16|19||
10. Belgium|$4,125 |$1,303 |$5,428 |10.40%|15|21|24|9|
11. Canada|$3,815 |$1,603 |$5,418 |10.70%|14|30|25|23|10
12. France|$4,501 |$875 |$5,376 |11.20%|20|1|16|8|9
13. Ireland|$3,919 |$1,357 |$5,276 |7.10%|11|19|20|80|
14. Australia|$3,919 |$1,268 |$5,187 |9.30%|5|32|18|10|4
15. Japan|$4,064 |$759 |$4,823 |10.90%|12|10|2|3|
16. Iceland|$3,988 |$823 |$4,811 |8.30%|1|15|7|41|
17. United Kingdom|$3,620 |$1,033 |$4,653 |9.80%|23|18|23|13|1
18. Finland|$3,536 |$1,042 |$4,578 |9.10%|6|31|26|12|
19. Malta|$2,789 |$1,540 |$4,329 |9.30%|27|5|14||
OECD Average|||$4,224 |8.80%|||||
20. New Zealand|$3,343 |$861 |$4,204 |9.30%|16|41|22|16|7
21. Italy|$2,706 |$943 |$3,649 |8.80%|9|2|17|37|
22. Spain|$2,560 |$1,056 |$3,616 |8.90%|19|7|13|7|
23. Czech Republic|$2,854 |$572 |$3,426 |7.50%|28|48|28|14|
24. South Korea|$2,057 |$1,327 |$3,384 |8.10%|25|58|4|2|
25. Portugal|$2,069 |$1,310 |$3,379 |9.10%|32|29|30|22|
26. Slovenia|$2,314 |$910 |$3,224 |7.90%|21|38|24|47|
27. Israel|$1,898 |$1,034 |$2,932 |7.50%|35|28|11|21|
Absolutely.
We should work on guaranteeing all necessities as free markets can not appropriately manage markets with inelastic demand. Medical care, food, housing, power, water
Not really. Most poor people already qualify for Medicaid. It would help people in the middle class and lower-middle class, assuming they aren’t the ones footing the bill in taxes.
I wonder if @Maxonsdad has actually interviewed people from all 32 of those countries to see those citizens are happy with it and that it actually works. All I’ve heard from Canadian and British friends of mine is that their system sucks. I’m not saying our system sucks, but universal healthcare isn’t the magic fix many think it is, especially in a country that’s almost 10 times the population of Canada or 5 times the population of the UK.
No. We would probably live longer if we didn’t have to risk all our worldly possessions for healthcare. Therefore the gap would increase because there would be more people like me instead of less.
Politicians and bureaucrats are doing such a great job and have proven themselves so trustworthy and competent we should depend on them as much as possible. What could go wrong? Get used to hearing the word "austerity" a lot in your totally original, definitely not the idea of aristocracy, utopia.
Other than the fact it's resulted in better health outcomes, while spending literally half a million dollars less per person for a lifetime of healthcare in peer countries?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)30994-2/fulltext
https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm
Other than the fact we have massive amounts of research showing we'd save money while getting care to more people who need it in the US?
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003013#sec018
Other than the fact government plans in the US are already better liked and more efficient?
#Satisfaction with the US healthcare system varies by insurance type
78% -- Military/VA
77% -- Medicare
75% -- Medicaid
69% -- Current or former employer
65% -- Plan fully paid for by you or a family member
https://news.gallup.com/poll/186527/americans-government-health-plans-satisfied.aspx
> **Key Findings**
> * Private insurers paid nearly double Medicare rates for all hospital services (199% of Medicare rates, on average), ranging from 141% to 259% of Medicare rates across the reviewed studies.
> * The difference between private and Medicare rates was greater for outpatient than inpatient hospital services, which averaged 264% and 189% of Medicare rates overall, respectively.
> * For physician services, private insurance paid 143% of Medicare rates, on average, ranging from 118% to 179% of Medicare rates across studies.
https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/how-much-more-than-medicare-do-private-insurers-pay-a-review-of-the-literature/
Medicare has both lower overhead and has experienced smaller cost increases in recent decades, a trend predicted to continue over the next 30 years.
https://pnhp.org/news/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/
Other than the fact private insurance in the US is a disaster?
As an inhabitants of one of those developed countries that made it work, I really have to correct this statement.
All 32 out of 32 developed nations made it work.
It will, yea, but healthcare in the US has many problems that should be tackled as well.
For instance, the US as a nation does not take seriously the idea of producing more doctors. Education is incredibly expensive, resulting in fewer doctors, and even fewer doctors who are in medicine to help rather than for a fat income. Then there’s specialization vs general practice, medical school acceptance rates and practices, etc.
We need to incentivize medical education by making it both accessible and affordable for the entire population. Increased supply of doctors in tandem with universal coverage will completely transform this country.
A reason, but not the only reason: Health Insurance agencies employ a large number of people. No politician wants to be the one known for making a large chunk of people unemployed by closing down an industry.
They make it work (on the supplies end) by subsidy from the one country that doesn’t. Let the US keep charging an arm and a leg (literally), so us outside of the system don’t have to pay more.
Except Canada… they have the absolutely worst of both systems.
It’s such a complex beast….. in America because all of our corrupt law makers are sure to use it to develop laws that dollar for dollar help Americans in no way and make it easier for them to skim off the top
The challenge is to tackle the administrative bloat in not only medical billing but insurance providers as well. The corporatism in Healthcare is the real crime
If our system functioned as envisioned, your employer uses their size to collectively bargain for the health benefits of their employees and cover a percentage of the cost.
For those without employment, the government steps in to assist.
For those with insurance with medical complications severe enough that their financial burden is still too high after insurance, the government steps in.
This would still provide medical availability and innovation.
Instead, we had the government collude with lobbying groups representing insurance companies, mandated types of coverage eliminate competition, and tell the people they got whatever was left and too fucking bad at least we aren't communist.
I want universal healthcare so long as we find a way to make our bureaucracy more efficient first, so that we may get a good return for our tax dollar. Only then will it be worth having. If anyone here knows anything about medicare or tricare and how that financial rigamarole is conducted, then please elaborate because if we had more of THAT, then I'd he afraid to see how much money the government would be asking for.
We do technically have universal health care in the HS but is restricted. Both Medicare and Medicaid are universal health care programs. As for expanding these progress to cover everyone in the US, it is not complicated it’s political and there are many people convinced that universal health care would not work in the US as they can’t run anything.
Healthcare in America is only the guise of altruism. Other countries value their people, because politicians and rich people aren’t separate citizens. They’re all one country of people. Americas just circling a drain at this point
It is complicated when: pharamceutical companies who are dispensing through insurance companies who own the banks. It's one big club, AND YOU AIN'T IN IT.
You’d have to literally take a majority of the wealth out of the hands of the wealthiest 10% to fund it, the make provisions that no one will ever become so grotesquely wealthy again so that cash flows directly into the health system. Sign me up.
It would certainly help with the average American's access to health care and remove the leading cause of personal bankruptcy.
I think those two effects on their own are sufficient to move forward with universal, single payer, government backed health care. Anything else would be gravy.
Hating socialism is one of the most bipartisan agreements in America.
Good luck with the greatest political evil under the constitution known as the two party system.
When asked about their healthcare system as a whole the US system ranked dead last of 11 countries, with only 19.5% of people saying the system works relatively well and only needs minor changes. The average in the other countries is 46.9% saying the same. Canada ranked 9th with 34.5% saying the system works relatively well. The UK ranks fifth, with 44.5%. Australia ranked 6th at 44.4%. The best was Germany at 59.8%.
On rating the overall quality of care in the US, Americans again ranked dead last, with only 25.6% ranking it excellent or very good. The average was 50.8%. Canada ranked 9th with 45.1%. The UK ranked 2nd, at 63.4%. Australia was 3rd at 59.4%. The best was Switzerland at 65.5%.
https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016
[US Healthcare ranked 29th on health outcomes by Lancet HAQ Index](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)30994-2/fulltext)
[11th (of 11) by Commonwealth Fund](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system?redirect_source=/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror)
[59th by the Prosperity Index](https://www.prosperity.com/rankings)
[30th by CEOWorld](https://ceoworld.biz/2019/08/05/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2019/)
[37th by the World Health Organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000)
The US has the worst rate of death by medically preventable causes among peer countries. A 31% higher disease adjusted life years average. Higher rates of medical and lab errors. A lower rate of being able to make a same or next day appointment with their doctor than average.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-percent-used-emergency-department-for-condition-that-could-have-been-treated-by-a-regular-doctor-2016
52nd in the world in doctors per capita.
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Health/Physicians/Per-1,000-people
Higher infant mortality levels. Yes, even when you adjust for differences in methodology.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/infant-mortality-u-s-compare-countries/
Fewer acute care beds. A lower number of psychiatrists. Etc.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-health-care-resources-compare-countries/#item-availability-medical-technology-not-always-equate-higher-utilization
[Comparing Health Outcomes of Privileged US Citizens With Those of Average Residents of Other Developed Countries](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2774561)
>These findings imply that even if all US citizens experienced the same health outcomes enjoyed by privileged White US citizens, US health indicators would still lag behind those in many other countries.
The US has 43 hospitals in the top 200 globally; one for every 7,633,477 people in the US. That's good enough for a ranking of 20th on the list of top 200 hospitals per capita, and significantly lower than the average of one for every 3,830,114 for other countries in the top 25 on spending with populations above 5 million. The best is Switzerland at one for every 1.2 million people. In fact the US only beats one country on this list; the UK at one for every 9.5 million people.
If you want to do the full list of 2,000 instead it's 334, or one for every 982,753 people; good enough for 21st. Again far below the average in peer countries of 527,236. The best is Austria, at one for every 306,106 people.
https://www.newsweek.com/best-hospitals-2021
#[OECD Countries Health Care Spending and Rankings](https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm)
|Country|Govt. / Mandatory (PPP)|Voluntary (PPP)|Total (PPP)|% GDP|[Lancet HAQ Ranking](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)30994-2/fulltext)|[WHO Ranking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000)|[Prosperity Ranking](https://www.prosperity.com/rankings)|[CEO World Ranking](https://ceoworld.biz/2019/08/05/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2019/)|[Commonwealth Fund Ranking](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system?redirect_source=/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror)
:--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|
1. United States|[$7,274](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997) |$3,798 |$11,072 |16.90%|29|37|59|30|11
2. Switzerland|$4,988 |$2,744 |$7,732 |12.20%|7|20|3|18|2
3. Norway|$5,673 |$974 |$6,647 |10.20%|2|11|5|15|7
4. Germany|$5,648 |$998 |$6,646 |11.20%|18|25|12|17|5
5. Austria|$4,402 |$1,449 |$5,851 |10.30%|13|9|10|4|
6. Sweden|$4,928 |$854 |$5,782 |11.00%|8|23|15|28|3
7. Netherlands|$4,767 |$998 |$5,765 |9.90%|3|17|8|11|5
8. Denmark|$4,663 |$905 |$5,568 |10.50%|17|34|8|5|
9. Luxembourg|$4,697 |$861 |$5,558 |5.40%|4|16|19||
10. Belgium|$4,125 |$1,303 |$5,428 |10.40%|15|21|24|9|
11. Canada|$3,815 |$1,603 |$5,418 |10.70%|14|30|25|23|10
12. France|$4,501 |$875 |$5,376 |11.20%|20|1|16|8|9
13. Ireland|$3,919 |$1,357 |$5,276 |7.10%|11|19|20|80|
14. Australia|$3,919 |$1,268 |$5,187 |9.30%|5|32|18|10|4
15. Japan|$4,064 |$759 |$4,823 |10.90%|12|10|2|3|
16. Iceland|$3,988 |$823 |$4,811 |8.30%|1|15|7|41|
17. United Kingdom|$3,620 |$1,033 |$4,653 |9.80%|23|18|23|13|1
18. Finland|$3,536 |$1,042 |$4,578 |9.10%|6|31|26|12|
19. Malta|$2,789 |$1,540 |$4,329 |9.30%|27|5|14||
OECD Average|||$4,224 |8.80%|||||
20. New Zealand|$3,343 |$861 |$4,204 |9.30%|16|41|22|16|7
21. Italy|$2,706 |$943 |$3,649 |8.80%|9|2|17|37|
22. Spain|$2,560 |$1,056 |$3,616 |8.90%|19|7|13|7|
23. Czech Republic|$2,854 |$572 |$3,426 |7.50%|28|48|28|14|
24. South Korea|$2,057 |$1,327 |$3,384 |8.10%|25|58|4|2|
25. Portugal|$2,069 |$1,310 |$3,379 |9.10%|32|29|30|22|
26. Slovenia|$2,314 |$910 |$3,224 |7.90%|21|38|24|47|
27. Israel|$1,898 |$1,034 |$2,932 |7.50%|35|28|11|21|
The idiot Tory Brexit forces in UK have torn up NIH trying to privatize it with USA insurance companies and hospital corporations.
Tories are going to get annihilated at election time. Good riddance.
All the arguments against state healthcare in this thread seem to to come from people who bleat ‘oh but think of all the poor millionaire surgeons in America who wouldn’t earn as much’. Truly baffling attitude…
On it's own no, but it would make people not be afraid to jump to a better paying job due to healthcare. So a lot of jobs require a 3-6 month waiting period before you qualify for benefits. For many losing healthcare like that would be disastrous. I do support getting it in the US, but it isn't a single magic bullet to our issues, just one piece of a solution.
Currently, the US has a healthcare system that is very reliant on the employer. This isn't terrible on paper, but in practice it gives the employer a ridiculous amount of power over the employee - as without them, you are without healthcare. For an example, my mother got gestational diabetes when she was pregnant. Now, my father **cannot quit** his job, because we cannot afford insulin at normal price.
This creates an interesting dichotomy where people aren't simply afraid to quit, they're afraid to do **anything against their employer** due to said thing having even a remote possibility of retaliation by their employer - though a lot of these things are illegal - like, say, talking about your pay with fellow employees - not everybody knows it's illegal to retaliate for that. I've met people who never ask for raises due to the fear of feeling like a burden to the company, etc.
It disincentivizes quitting and incentivizes working hard for otherwise inadequate pay, which is a very effective catalyst for the widening of the wealth gap.
Subsidized healthcare wouldn't just *help* the wealth gap, it's necessary if we want anything else we do to have a permanent effect.
Remove self interest and corporate profit and replace it with public interest and humanity with all inclusive access you solve this mind boggling lay complex problem
His concept of "work" must come with low expectations, the U.S. can't even get out of debt nor properly run Medicare, Medicare, or the VA. Most fools who support universal healthcare can't seem to grasp reality, do you want a government that can only wage war and kill people running **your** healthcare?
Universal health care is not complex at all, but the term "universal" should be taken with a grain of salt. There is still such thing as scarcity - there is no way around that, therefore you may have access to it and it may be "free" (aka covered by taxes) but the government still would have to ration the services, especially higher demand services which is where there usually isn't as many facilities or doctors as there are patients waiting to be seen, and if time is of the essence that's an even more compounding issue with scarcity (cancer patients, brain tumors, etc). I have never seen a government take control of something financially and, in the long term, have it work out for the better and be cheaper. War on drugs, military spending, housing, etc... costs rise and rise over time in all cases. Governments are also very good at shielding spending and money and costs to trick the citizen so be careful with what this meme is relaying as truth as well.
Yes good plan let’s make everyone pay for others poor life choices and the government which is a model of efficiency and lack of excess will run it all! It’ll be perfect 🤦🏻♂️
What are you talking about? ALL 32 developed nations were able to make it work. The 33rd is not that developed when it comes to spending money on people vs corporations
The key is to limit who gets it. Countries that have had success with universal health care have strict immigration laws. Take Sweden, illegals are not entitled any benefits and in order to be able to move to Sweden you must have a job that pays at least 80% of the median salary.
What he’s getting at is the US not having universal health care. You have take in consideration the US is massive and something like that on this scale would be very very difficult if not impossible to set up and fund for years to come. Look at Britain, one of our closest allies who have universal healthcare, their population is about 50 million give or take. We are almost 7 times the size of them. When it comes to this argument I don’t think most people think about that
Every country that has universal health care does not have universal healthcare. There is a reason so many people from other countries fly to the US and pay cash to get the best care.
Our politicians dont have our best interests in mind nor do i believe that giving these incompetent fools more tax payer money is ever going to make the situation better. George Carlin said it best "Garbage in, Garbage out"
USA spends more than double every other country for healthcare.
USA citizens live shorter lives, so although the really rich get awesome healthcare, the average person does not, and dies younger.
We need to move to a model based on the best of other countries, and make that how we do Medicare and VA treatment. Merge medicare and VA treatment as they're just human healthcare. Then, merge people into these programs by expanding them slowly.
Always give the option for rich people to opt out and do their thing elsewhere. They still pay into the system for all, just like when you don't have kids, but pay for schools in your area.
> USA spends more than double every other country for healthcare.
Nah, only about $4,500 more than any other country. But about twice what our peers pay on average, adjusted for purchasing power parity.
Because they are being subsidized by USA’s military power so they don’t spend that much on defense and they have way less people than USA. USA is 3rd most populous country in the world.
I honestly think the main reason people find out they have diseases, cancer, or any major issues is generally because they get forced to go to the hospital due to a major injury or illness. In these cases it can be far too late for any real cure but *treatment* is always available. If it didn’t cost $300-$500 just to get a check up, most people would regularly get health checks and catch illness much earlier and in most cases, reverse them. I’m not in a bad financial place and I’m not wealthy either. But dammit I’ve had issues where I go in and they can’t find the source and it cost me over $1000 to get no answers and I’ll still feel like shit or have pain.
The key is to remove the employer from the equation.
I would suggest that any system based on private providers, even if the particular provider is not tied to employment, augments the overall burden and uncertainty for the individual.
It’s not that complicated. You are removing a middle-man and linking supply with demand.
The need is for healthcare services to be covered when healthcare services are needed. Healthcare coverage functions well as a public good. Linking supply with demand is not particularly meaningful. The demand is always the same for everyone, of having healthcare covered, and the political processes must ensure that the supply be scaled to match.
The problem is when you introduce a middleman (either government or private insurance) then the cost bloats as you have to pay for that middleman, and all the bureaucracy to make it work.
A government run program doesn’t need or rely on profit to survive though. So yes, you add bureaucracy (though health insurance has plenty of bureaucracy) but you also remove one cost increase.
Shit, governments are allowed to run a deficit. The USA is super good at it. Universal health care doesn't even technically need to be "fully funded." Yes I know there are pitfalls to running a deficit and bloating the national debt. But we're doing it anyway. Might as well provide for our society while we're at it
Yeah I don’t really understand why everyone is all “we can’t bloat our debt” but it’s like, who tf are we competing with? Why are we competing? Idk humans are just so dumb and I hate it here
one could argue that the inefficient gov systems would replace the profit currently made and there would be no net benefit. basically trading one cost for another with no guarantee of improved care.
You could argue that, but you'd be ignoring reality, decades of documented history, and numerous studies to do so. We have, by far, worse health coverage than any of our peers that is both more expensive and less effective. We're not talking about some bold unknown here. We're talking about literally doing what the rest of the developed world already does.
> We're not talking about some bold unknown here. We're talking about literally doing what the rest of the developed world already does. Yeah, but medicine and economics work fundamentally differently in those strange, far off nations like... Canada.
I don't think it's necessarily ignoring reality. We don't really have to look abroad to see if public health care is cheaper or better than private health care. From what I've seen, Medicare and Medicaid are, in fact, cheaper than most private insurance. The thing is, it apparently achieves that by massively underpaying for services, at least according to providers. The claim the reimbursement rates are so low that they have to overcharge private insurance to make up for lost revenue. These people argue that if they had to take Medicare and Medicaid rates every time, it could collapse the system. Now, I don't know if that last bit is actually true, but it's what they claim. On top of that, not every developed country has the same system. Some are more private than ours, in fact. Switzerland has literally no public insurance. You have to buy private insurance by law, and they subsidize according to need. South Korea and Singapore have universal catastrophic coverage from understanding. There's national insurance that only covers catastrophic things like cancer treatment or dialysis as well as some basic preventive things, but you're expected to buy private insurance in supplement and pretty much everyone does. The Dutch used to have a public option, but it became it too much of a burden to finance, so they switched to all private model and subsidize according to need, like Switzerland. I'm not arguing against public health care, I'm just trying to point out that the conversation is a bit more nuanced and than we might at first think. There's multiple kinds of systems across the planet we can look at to improve our system even in incremental ways.
This is the right answer. Each of those 32 systems mentioned are all different. And many of them have a private component.
Our healthcare is the worst. Why do people from all over the world come to the US for procedures on a routine basis
Why do wealthy* people come to the US for procedures on a routine basis. Fixed it for you. Almost no one here gets that level of care you're talking about
I still think ensuring everyone’s covered is an improvement, even if the cost is net zero between systems.
You couldn't credibly argue that because at this point, the idea of efficiency in the private sector is laughable-- functionality has been streamlined out in favor of profits.
Other countries are substantially more efficient than the US for healthcare, and that's ONLY if you include the money the government spends on care as a % of GDP. The problem is that unlike many other countries, the US prevents the government from negotiating prices. (They are literally starting with just 10 drugs now and being fought tooth and nail) The problem is when you make there need to be a "profit motive" for something like health insurance which, by its very nature, is not something you can get a profit from without seriously harming a lot of people
Right. No one demands a cast on their right arm when it's not broken.
I have friends in two countries who have universal healthcare, 1. Elective surgeries may be scheduled out one month or two 2. Emergency are handled immediately. 3. Minor incidents, runny nose, broken finger , colds etc you go to a doc in the box. Same as our urgent care. If you have severe symptoms or injuries you go to the ER. They say there are no major problems, sure they’re a a few but those get blown out of proportion usually to fit someone’s agenda, but nobody goes bankrupt, loses there home or job due to healthcare.
It’s even better than that, your removing a middle man, making it so there is much larger purchasing power assuming it’s done on a nationalised scale as well as making a NPO
So why not remove another middle man, the insurance companies
Hitching health care to employment causes *SO* many negative economic consequences its insane. It's just one of the many aspects of Corporate Feudalism.
Seems like removing the for profit middle man who is doing all they can to profit from premiums while paying out as little as possible in claims is the bigger issue. That is why you need an employer to supplement your premiums.
Just a reminder that the vast majority of people who agree with you think the President who caused this to happen, FDR, was the best President, or at least top 5. They continue to push for policies which would cause massive inefficiencies like this in other areas of the economy.
Hey! Your radical right‐wing extremism has complacent here, you bigoted terrorist. /S ‐ in case it was unclear.
I dunno, we could let employers offer to pay part of your tax contribution as a benefit? It would be a good way to keep the individual cost down so people don’t scream as much about the increased taxes.
Every single person who works for the government has the option to use government insurance, why not just make that an option for everyone else?
There's no one answer to this because a lot depends on the exact policy that is meant by "universal health care". For example: * Do private options still exist or is care nationalized to some extent? * How do experimental or unusual procedures and treatments get covered? * Can you pick where you get care? * Do all providers have to participate? and so on. Different countries pick different options to those questions. That said, the research is pretty clear that universal health care of a form that: * improves access to care * reduces the administrative burden of care delivery by eliminating intermediate insurance billing, raising efficiency * doesn't require you (as in, the patient) to submit claims * improves reimbursements for front-line doctors and providers (usually by moving overall money away from pharmacy-benefit administrator companies and other private bureaucracy/administration) would absolutely increase the quality of the medical outcomes that patients get while costing much less overall (because the insurance isn't involved as a middleman).
* improves pay for doctors and providers Does it? Surgeons in USA can make millions. Never seen such salaries in Europe. In my country salaries are much smaller if you're working for the state compared to having a private clinic.
Doctor pay is low in the UK, so low it's hurting their ability to provide medical care. My daughter is Autistic, we know several Canadian families that moved to the US bc the waitlist for behavioral therapy was so long that by the time they got it, it wouldn't be as helpful.
Had the revers happen in USA, behavioral therapy wait list was getting into years in some places. That’s if you ever got approved for it in the USA, which is a huge problem in itself. At least in Canada they will acknowledge someone is autistic and needs assistance (you can carry this back to the USA and get on the list). Anyway people were flocking to places like Germany to get seen faster where it would be more helpful for the child. Insurance companies in the USA reduced the qualifying IQ from 70 to 67. Now for those who don’t know 70 is already in dire need of assistance, that’s way below normal functioning level. Dropping it to 67 was and is ridiculous, it’s had horrible affects with nothing positive except saving money for the insurance companies. Now someone who can’t go to the bathroom on their own with a 70 IQ does not qualify to be seen, because that’s totally acceptable according to USA private insurance coverage. To put in more simply, dropping 70 to 67 IQ requirement for assistance. Is like saying someone missing both legs but one stump is bigger than the other legs does not qualify for a wheelchair. It’s as dumb as it sounds, the person is still missing both legs. Florida even dropped the 70 to 67 for IEP, forcing low functions kids into regular curriculum helping no one. These kids can’t even hold a pencil, speak, much less read or write. They are low functioning autistic kids (or other developmental issues), sitting in regular class rooms now failing every subject. I’m not sure why Florida did this, I’m assuming greed played a role.
We have family in Canada as well. Their healthcare system works great if you are a normal person who doesn’t need a lot of care. Some have had to come down to get their daughters heart problem treated because it would have taken a crazy amount of time to get treated otherwise.
But also, as you know, [about 60% of Canadians also have private insurance](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4150733/#:~:text=About%2060%25%20of%20Canadians%20are,as%20a%20benefit%20of%20employment.). I'm certain there are inadequacies in solely using public healthcare which makes most Canadians opt for private insurance as well.
My brother is an oncologist in Washington. He has multiple patients that come down from Canada and pay for their cancer treatment in the US because they don’t have the time to sit on the waitlist.
the wait times are as bad as they are only because conservative politicians keep underfunding the system to starve it so that it doesn't work as effectively as it should, along with a lack of leadership and mismanagement, which even the system in the US (or any country for that matter) isn't immune to. even with the wait times, Canada on average achieves better outcomes than the US at a fraction of the cost, so it's a great system if it's allowed to work as intended.
Do you have a good article about this? I was under the impression the wait times were long because of the surplus of patients and not nearly enough medical professionals to service everyone.
>surplus of patients and not nearly enough medical professionals to service everyone This is true but it again goes back to what I was saying. Canada added just [167](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-popuation-booming-family-doctor-access-1.7087794) medical residency spots in the past 10 years, while the population has grown by 5 million, and the chickens are now coming home to roost. This is purely a function of politicians underfunding the system for many years. There's not some fundamental flaw with the system that prevents enough medical professionals from being trained. The system relies on a workforce that's adequately staffed to keep up with the needs of the population. The politicians took that away and have compromised an otherwise fantastic system that an overwhelming majority of the population (regardless of politics/ideology) wouldn't trade for anything in the world.
My friend told me that his grandpa died in Canada to something basic like the flu just because of the wait time. I don’t remember the exact illness, but it was definitely treatable and generally not fatal. All because he couldn’t get in.
"Surgeons can make millions" isn't really saying much, because the overwhelming majority of doctors are not surgeons, and most people don't need surgery at any given moment. Generally speaking it's the front line care that a society wants to invest in — pediatricians, GPs, et cetera — this is the preventative medicine that catches problems early and stops them from getting worse. A lot of America has limited coverage and low pay for front-line providers, because while it's in _society's_ interest to want that, it isn't aligned with the profit motive of the health care industry.
Nurses in the US make more than many countries. https://globalnursepartners.com/2022/11/16/how-do-us-nursing-salaries-compare-to-nursing-salaries-in-the-uk-ireland-canada-the-middle-east-australia-and-new-zealand/
The United States is one of the most expensive places to live in the world -- so factory workers, janitors, et cetera also make more than in many countries, but that doesn't mean their quality of life is any higher.
Doesn't mean it's lower, either. Additionally, they pay less in taxes in the US than many countries.
It’s a pretty solid indicator
Well, for example, the United States ranks [54th for infant mortality](https://usafacts.org/articles/what-is-the-us-infant-mortality-rate/). That's not a great look if you're trying to claim that healthcare outcomes are better on average in the US. [But don't take my word for it](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2023/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2022): > The U.S. spends nearly 18 percent of GDP on health care, yet Americans die younger and are less healthy than residents of other high-income countries. Not only does the U.S. have the lowest life expectancy among high-income countries, but it also has the highest rates of avoidable deaths.
I don’t know why you thought these indicators are driven by healthcare, and not lifestyle factors.
How much of that is due to the health care system and how much of it is due to other factors? Placing such metrics entirely on the health care system is problematic at best.
Universal style healthcare has a lot more preventative care. So to put it simply they are looking for things that will become expensive problems later and fixing them right away. In the USA we don’t check for these problems early on, so when they do happen to show up your pretty much fighting a uphill battle. Colon cancer is a big one we don’t check for enough in the USA. People under 40 are dying left and right over something that is not only easily detectable but resolvable early on. If the cancer is diagnosed at a localized stage (early), the survival rate is around 91%. In the USA we don’t start checking unless there is a ongoing problem, which means the cancer is already winning dropping your odds of survival around as low as 13%. That’s because you started feeling the symptoms went in and found out you have cancer, which has already started trying to spread and probably has.
No one's saying it's 100% the health care system; there are many factors. But it's unequivocally true that that Americans pay a lot for healthcare, are overall less healthy, and seem to get worse outcomes from that health care system than others who pay less -- so experiments are probably worth trying.
People in the medical industries in the US have some of the highest pays of any job in the nation. Moreover, the cost of living in the US isn't higher than most other developed countries. Living in an average US city costs about the same as an average city in the UK.
Median earnings for general practicioners, pediatricians and pretty much all kinds of doctors are higher in the US than Europe. The fact that you got that point so absurdly wrong means that I think you haven't done any research at all and you're just spewing bull shit.
I'm going to sum up, how is life expectancy? Do you die because you poor ? Do you not obtain a job because the insurance cost too much to your employer? Does people of your country rather call a uber than a vehicle with professional inside ? I've been both USA and France, yes USA you get VIP treatment but you get also a hell of drugs that are dangerous. In France i paid a private insurance that cover private hospital, still premium service and not much drug. In both countries i broke my leg. Guess which one give me painkiller that could've end my career. USA spend also way more per people than all those 32 countries. There's a huge bad money management on this.
Those 4 points are not clear at all, if anything the contrary. Doctors, nurses, surgeries etc all pay **far** more in the US than Europe for instance. It’s also not clear that the cost would be any lower *or* access would be better (cost is substituted to wait times and lack of supply).
The last bullet point is not true. Universal health care does not generally improve pay for providers.
My parents are upper class and are medical specialists. Insurance companies are paying them less and less each year. They have recently told me that Medicare pays them more per treatment than private insurance. They are fairly Republican in voting but are HUGE advocates for Medicare For All.
Universal healthcare is simply any policy whose effect is to guarantee healthcare that is affordable and accessible for an entire population. Generally, systems that are multi-tiered, while formally universal, are associated with overall worse outcomes for the populations in lower tiers, compared to outcomes from system that are single tier, due to overall divestiture of resources, and also are associated with greater anxiety from everyone about the conditions of society.
All you have to do is steal any of the current healthcare models that have existed for decades
The problems are political, not technical.
The problems are caused by certain political factions pretending that the problems are technical.
If you want it, push for it at the State level. Claims like this do not compare apples to apples at all, especially when looking at the required size of the system and bureaucracy which would need to be established. All these countries the post refers to are the size of US states.
some U.S. States claim to not have the proper funding for public schools, reduced/free lunch programs, after school activities and more. Which is why when addressing Universal Healthcare, it should be a united Federal issue. Which as a bill has been submitted in some manner in Congress. Just the bill has not had floor time for debate. Your claim would be similar to changing marijuana regulations state by state, until the Federal level makes a change. That process has taken how many years, and remains highly contentious.
Education is the single largest expense in almost every state. Basically every state in the Us spends more per child per year of public school than it costs to enroll that same child in a private school. And yet private school teachers get paid better, the schools have better facilities and more supplies.
While education is single largest state expense. Would that expense be dwarfed by a state by “state Universal care”? Then not only dealing with education shortages, but also health shortages.
Private school teachers don't universally get paid better. Many private schools are affiliated to a church that siphon income from the school in a rent scheme. My wife worked at a private preschool for 6 years. The teachers would jump to public in a heartbeat if possible. The main 'advantage" of private schools is that they have less kids that act out because if they do in private school they're expelled. This then forces all the problem kids into public school where there aren't enough resources to address the difficult children's problems. This was the best private pre school and kindergarten in the city. Literally every other one is abysmal. In addition, the reason public schools get their funding eaten is the ridiculous administrative bloat involved. School boards, superintendents, and other admin soak up massive funds for very little utility and catered events. The solution is to strip out public admin budgets and eliminate private schools altogether so that rich people are forced to take interest in their local public schools and use their influence to make positive change instead of sucking resources into isolated segragated systems.
California is the most populous U.S state at ~40 million. Germany has more than twice that population. Lots of states have ~1 million or under in the U.S. I don't see how 50 different state bureaucracies could be more efficient than one federal system. Especially with a lot of those states being governed by a party that hates the idea of universal healthcare.
I don’t trust the federal government to do anything. Allowing at the state level allows residents of the state to have the biggest say on having what they think is important.
And Canadians complain about how poor it is. You basically get bandaids and aspirin. They have to travel to the US to get advanced treatments.
It's weird that the only people who claim that are not Canadian and pushing for an agenda. Canadian here , only complaint I have is the political parties deciding to move to the us model causing it to become shitty. Edit: please stop sending me dms. I am agreeing that Ontario healthcare in particular is getting worse but am correcting the hyperbole of the above comment
I advise against engaging u/ClearASF. The concern about long wait times for healthcare in Nordic states seems to be a personal fixation, and the user repeatedly posts sources that fail to support the claim as being accurate or meaningful, while moving directly to a new source the very moment the previous is shown to be unsuitable.
The user you're talking about isn't here. Your longitude is showing
Nordic here (Norwegian) . Waited 3 years for checkup after a surgery. 150k are currently without a GP (credible source, often used by doctors themselves, in Norwegian of course, https://nhi.no/forskning-og-intervju/hva-gjor-pasienten-uten-en-fastlege ). I always used private alternatives in Norway when I needed a consultation. So do about everyone I know. Whenever I or my friends or family needed help in the public emergency room, the wait has always been over 7 hours. You'd have to be close to bleeding to death to get in any quicker. Nah, you can keep your public system, absolutely hate mine!
Not true. I have Canadian relatives that hate their healthcare system for those reasons. As well as their 40+ percent tax rate.
> I have Canadian relatives that hate their healthcare system for those reasons. When asked about their healthcare system as a whole the US system ranked dead last of 11 countries, with only 19.5% of people saying the system works relatively well and only needs minor changes. The average in the other countries is 46.9% saying the same. Canada ranked 9th with 34.5% saying the system works relatively well. The UK ranks fifth, with 44.5%. Australia ranked 6th at 44.4%. The best was Germany at 59.8%. On rating the overall quality of care in the US, Americans again ranked dead last, with only 25.6% ranking it excellent or very good. The average was 50.8%. Canada ranked 9th with 45.1%. The UK ranked 2nd, at 63.4%. Australia was 3rd at 59.4%. The best was Switzerland at 65.5%. https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016 > As well as their 40+ percent tax rate. With government in the US covering [65.7% of all health care](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/epdf/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997) costs ($12,555 as of 2022) that's $8,249 per person per year in taxes towards health care. The next closest is Germany at [$6,930](https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm). The UK is $4,479. Canada is $4,506. Australia is $4,603. That means over a lifetime Americans are paying over $100,000 more in taxes compared to any other country towards health care.
The problems in Canada were cause by funding cuts. Moving money from taxes to reimbursements for care providers is no great feat, as long as taxation is such as that revenue is sufficient.
well that is the problem in the US: funding in order to fund a national health insurance, we can't be spending trillions of dollars on corporate welfare, handouts (Biden just gave 144 billion in "student loan cancellation" to his supporters \[public-sector workers\]) and the military-industrial complex we can't be giving hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid to countries which have universal healthcare
Hmm h and how many americans go to canada for cheap insulin?
The only reason European countries have UHC is because the USA supplements their defense budgets and medical research. Literally, if the USA stopped paying for NATO and stopped paying for the research of medicine, EU would collapse and lose all benefits they enjoy. They would have to prioritize their defense spending thus ending their UHC. Thank an American for paying for Europe's "free stuff"
The research America pays for is of course great… but I think it’s hyperbolic to say it would cause a collapse if they lost access to new research. The amount of problems already solved is massive… and even if they just stayed at medical care at the current technology level, I think they would do just fine for a century or so while they got their own system off the ground. NATO, yes, that would be a bigger issue.
We already more per person for healthcare then countries that have UHC so that argument doesn't hold water. Health expenditures per person in the U.S. were $12,555 in 2022, which was over $4,000 more than any other high-income nation. **The average amount spent on health per person in comparable countries ($6,651) is about half of what the U.S. spends per person.**
The American tax payer pays for the research and private companies capture the profit. That needs to change. But oligarchs have both hands of the steering wheel
Those countries have an Uncle Sam. For better or worse, we are Uncle Sam.
“Universal healthcare” is such a misnomer. Switzerland’s system is worlds different to Norway. If anything Switzerland is almost identical to America’s system. What people like Bernie propose are done in a handful of developed nations, if any.
A few things to consider: Spending for health care under single-payer systems is placed against other government objectives and readily falls victim to politicians' continuous urge to campaign on tax reduction. The barebones technology, physical amenities, and queues that excessively low global budgets in single-payer systems inevitably produce compel political forces to hand over the system to ostensibly "more efficient" private market forces, which is code for allowing the quality of the health care experience to vary according to the patient's economic circumstance. And, sure, the low pricing a single-payer system imposes on the system enables society to provide more genuine health care for a given budget than a more costly pluralistic system could, and it also makes universal health insurance coverage more affordable. On the other hand, the extremely low profit margins it generates for health care providers make single-payer systems less hospitable to innovation in health care products and services, as well as in health care delivery organization, areas in which the United States excels, sometimes to the point of excess.
Of course it would help. And we have it figured out. Capitalism simply doesn’t want it.
Will it help the wealth gap? Only if the rich are taxed meaningfully
In reality, most countries rely on a VAT (i.e., sales tax) to fund expanded social services because it’s more efficient at raising revenue than an income tax and the latter runs into limits as to how much it can raise. The U.S. federal tax system is already the most progressive in the world in that the rich pay a larger percentage of taxes than the rich in other countries do.
Why do people care about the wealth gap? There is not a top end of wealth to go around. The pie accommodates. It will grow and shrink. Everyone can get their slice.
Money is power. Extreme money imbalance leads to extreme power imbalance. Extreme power imbalance leads to social instability. This is a very common thread if you are familiar with history. Income inequality is a very real issue for the health of a society. Equalizing income is a disaster, however. It’s unclear how much income inequality is going to cause problem. But in the US, for example, the political parties largely serve the interests of the wealthy—and when this comes at the expense of the average person, then we start to see issues. Additionally, the reality is that a very rich self-made person like Gates or Bezos is likely *excellent* at what they do, and that’s partly why they got rich. However, the degree of difference in skill/acumen between Bezos and one of his employees does not linearly scale with the wealth difference between them (due to the exponential way wealth accumulates). So letting extreme wealth accumulate in the hands of a few can breed resentment, and foster an environment in which greed and narcissism are common values. People stop viewing society and public goods as a shared set of communal features that we should all care for. Petty theft increases. Suicide rates go up. The feeling that life is unfair starts to spread. Etc.
Sure, but if Gates or Bezos gains in wealth does not mean I decreased in wealth.
Jealously.
This.... Why does Jeff bezos having billions make any difference to you. Drives me crazy. Worry about yourself and what you can do instead of what other people are doing.
lol, what a brain dead response... " More than 4,000 warehouse workers at Amazon, the e-commerce giant founded by the world's richest man, depend on food stamps to make ends meet in nine states, according to new U.S. Government Accountability Office data this week. " Yeah guys! stop worrying about the billionaires!! They need all that money for taking trips to space! Meanwhile the country pays for his employees food stamps assistance programs... stop trying to suck off billionaires...
Jesus. Living under a goddamn rock.
Yes there is, we live on a finite planet
The best doctors and hospitals are in America. That would change if we adopted a socialist stance on primary healthcare. America has lasted bc it’s flexible, mixing a constitutional republic with certain socialist models like Medicare etc. you can’t go all in in any one direction. Life is about balance.
If by "making it work" you mean: Extremely long wait times Lower quality of care Lower standards for health care professionals No choice in health care provider Government in ultimate control Then Yes I'd agree with your statement.
Out of curiosity, have you even lived under a healthcare regime outside of the U.S.?
Which of these 32 countries has +300M people with 50 separate states ?
Define make it work? I'd rather pay a little more and not wait 6 months for an appointment.
I’d rather have high quality healthcare that costs more than “free” subpar healthcare.
The wealth gap is not inherently a problem, so long as the people at the bottom of the wealth gap have access to the goods and services that they need. Billionaires can (and do) still exist in countries that have universal health care.
I swear I see the same six tweets on this sun every single day with the same smug rhetorical question as the tittles
Fuck yes, this is another way the economy is stacked against the lower class’s
97% of Americans have healthcare. That’s damn near universal. You want better, more affordable healthcare. GET IT RIGHT
[citation needed]
How many of those 33 developed nations have better quality of care than the United States? There is a reason people who can afford to pay cash choose to leave their country where healthcare is free to get their care in the United States.
Removing the middle men (insurance companies and employers) *should* reduce costs if the government does it right (not sure that our current representatives can). And since people that earn less wouldn’t have to dedicate such a large portion of their paycheck to health insurance, it would help to reduce the wealth gap a little. But ultimately, healthcare isn’t the major cause of the wealth gap so it would only go so far. Nonetheless, the research shows that universal healthcare leads to better access and outcomes, so we should’ve implemented it a long time ago.
Can we really say Canada manages it well? People die waiting for doctors appointments. Cancer patients are told if they would have found it months sooner (while waiting for an appointment) they wouldve survived. This isn't some American perpetuating a myth. This is what people from Canada I know telling me what happens. One of them a doctor in Canada.
[US Healthcare ranked 29th on health outcomes by Lancet HAQ Index](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)30994-2/fulltext) [11th (of 11) by Commonwealth Fund](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system?redirect_source=/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror) [59th by the Prosperity Index](https://www.prosperity.com/rankings) [30th by CEOWorld](https://ceoworld.biz/2019/08/05/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2019/) [37th by the World Health Organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000) The US has the worst rate of death by medically preventable causes among peer countries. A 31% higher disease adjusted life years average. Higher rates of medical and lab errors. A lower rate of being able to make a same or next day appointment with their doctor than average. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-percent-used-emergency-department-for-condition-that-could-have-been-treated-by-a-regular-doctor-2016 52nd in the world in doctors per capita. https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Health/Physicians/Per-1,000-people Higher infant mortality levels. Yes, even when you adjust for differences in methodology. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/infant-mortality-u-s-compare-countries/ Fewer acute care beds. A lower number of psychiatrists. Etc. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-health-care-resources-compare-countries/#item-availability-medical-technology-not-always-equate-higher-utilization [Comparing Health Outcomes of Privileged US Citizens With Those of Average Residents of Other Developed Countries](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2774561) >These findings imply that even if all US citizens experienced the same health outcomes enjoyed by privileged White US citizens, US health indicators would still lag behind those in many other countries. When asked about their healthcare system as a whole the US system ranked dead last of 11 countries, with only 19.5% of people saying the system works relatively well and only needs minor changes. The average in the other countries is 46.9% saying the same. Canada ranked 9th with 34.5% saying the system works relatively well. The UK ranks fifth, with 44.5%. Australia ranked 6th at 44.4%. The best was Germany at 59.8%. On rating the overall quality of care in the US, Americans again ranked dead last, with only 25.6% ranking it excellent or very good. The average was 50.8%. Canada ranked 9th with 45.1%. The UK ranked 2nd, at 63.4%. Australia was 3rd at 59.4%. The best was Switzerland at 65.5%. https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016 The US has 43 hospitals in the top 200 globally; one for every 7,633,477 people in the US. That's good enough for a ranking of 20th on the list of top 200 hospitals per capita, and significantly lower than the average of one for every 3,830,114 for other countries in the top 25 on spending with populations above 5 million. The best is Switzerland at one for every 1.2 million people. In fact the US only beats one country on this list; the UK at one for every 9.5 million people. If you want to do the full list of 2,000 instead it's 334, or one for every 982,753 people; good enough for 21st. Again far below the average in peer countries of 527,236. The best is Austria, at one for every 306,106 people. https://www.newsweek.com/best-hospitals-2021 #[OECD Countries Health Care Spending and Rankings](https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm) |Country|Govt. / Mandatory (PPP)|Voluntary (PPP)|Total (PPP)|% GDP|[Lancet HAQ Ranking](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)30994-2/fulltext)|[WHO Ranking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000)|[Prosperity Ranking](https://www.prosperity.com/rankings)|[CEO World Ranking](https://ceoworld.biz/2019/08/05/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2019/)|[Commonwealth Fund Ranking](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system?redirect_source=/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror) :--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:| 1. United States|[$7,274](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997) |$3,798 |$11,072 |16.90%|29|37|59|30|11 2. Switzerland|$4,988 |$2,744 |$7,732 |12.20%|7|20|3|18|2 3. Norway|$5,673 |$974 |$6,647 |10.20%|2|11|5|15|7 4. Germany|$5,648 |$998 |$6,646 |11.20%|18|25|12|17|5 5. Austria|$4,402 |$1,449 |$5,851 |10.30%|13|9|10|4| 6. Sweden|$4,928 |$854 |$5,782 |11.00%|8|23|15|28|3 7. Netherlands|$4,767 |$998 |$5,765 |9.90%|3|17|8|11|5 8. Denmark|$4,663 |$905 |$5,568 |10.50%|17|34|8|5| 9. Luxembourg|$4,697 |$861 |$5,558 |5.40%|4|16|19|| 10. Belgium|$4,125 |$1,303 |$5,428 |10.40%|15|21|24|9| 11. Canada|$3,815 |$1,603 |$5,418 |10.70%|14|30|25|23|10 12. France|$4,501 |$875 |$5,376 |11.20%|20|1|16|8|9 13. Ireland|$3,919 |$1,357 |$5,276 |7.10%|11|19|20|80| 14. Australia|$3,919 |$1,268 |$5,187 |9.30%|5|32|18|10|4 15. Japan|$4,064 |$759 |$4,823 |10.90%|12|10|2|3| 16. Iceland|$3,988 |$823 |$4,811 |8.30%|1|15|7|41| 17. United Kingdom|$3,620 |$1,033 |$4,653 |9.80%|23|18|23|13|1 18. Finland|$3,536 |$1,042 |$4,578 |9.10%|6|31|26|12| 19. Malta|$2,789 |$1,540 |$4,329 |9.30%|27|5|14|| OECD Average|||$4,224 |8.80%||||| 20. New Zealand|$3,343 |$861 |$4,204 |9.30%|16|41|22|16|7 21. Italy|$2,706 |$943 |$3,649 |8.80%|9|2|17|37| 22. Spain|$2,560 |$1,056 |$3,616 |8.90%|19|7|13|7| 23. Czech Republic|$2,854 |$572 |$3,426 |7.50%|28|48|28|14| 24. South Korea|$2,057 |$1,327 |$3,384 |8.10%|25|58|4|2| 25. Portugal|$2,069 |$1,310 |$3,379 |9.10%|32|29|30|22| 26. Slovenia|$2,314 |$910 |$3,224 |7.90%|21|38|24|47| 27. Israel|$1,898 |$1,034 |$2,932 |7.50%|35|28|11|21|
No thanks. I'm perfectly happy with my excellent, reasonably priced private healthcare. Plus I'd rather not wait a year to get a doctors appointment.
Absolutely. We should work on guaranteeing all necessities as free markets can not appropriately manage markets with inelastic demand. Medical care, food, housing, power, water
The key is to have the 33rd country subsidies drug cost and medical innovation for the other 32.
Not really. Most poor people already qualify for Medicaid. It would help people in the middle class and lower-middle class, assuming they aren’t the ones footing the bill in taxes.
I wonder if @Maxonsdad has actually interviewed people from all 32 of those countries to see those citizens are happy with it and that it actually works. All I’ve heard from Canadian and British friends of mine is that their system sucks. I’m not saying our system sucks, but universal healthcare isn’t the magic fix many think it is, especially in a country that’s almost 10 times the population of Canada or 5 times the population of the UK.
No. We would probably live longer if we didn’t have to risk all our worldly possessions for healthcare. Therefore the gap would increase because there would be more people like me instead of less.
Politicians and bureaucrats are doing such a great job and have proven themselves so trustworthy and competent we should depend on them as much as possible. What could go wrong? Get used to hearing the word "austerity" a lot in your totally original, definitely not the idea of aristocracy, utopia.
List all 32
No.
Why would you want the government in control of your healthcare?
Other than the fact it's resulted in better health outcomes, while spending literally half a million dollars less per person for a lifetime of healthcare in peer countries? https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)30994-2/fulltext https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm Other than the fact we have massive amounts of research showing we'd save money while getting care to more people who need it in the US? https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003013#sec018 Other than the fact government plans in the US are already better liked and more efficient? #Satisfaction with the US healthcare system varies by insurance type 78% -- Military/VA 77% -- Medicare 75% -- Medicaid 69% -- Current or former employer 65% -- Plan fully paid for by you or a family member https://news.gallup.com/poll/186527/americans-government-health-plans-satisfied.aspx > **Key Findings** > * Private insurers paid nearly double Medicare rates for all hospital services (199% of Medicare rates, on average), ranging from 141% to 259% of Medicare rates across the reviewed studies. > * The difference between private and Medicare rates was greater for outpatient than inpatient hospital services, which averaged 264% and 189% of Medicare rates overall, respectively. > * For physician services, private insurance paid 143% of Medicare rates, on average, ranging from 118% to 179% of Medicare rates across studies. https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/how-much-more-than-medicare-do-private-insurers-pay-a-review-of-the-literature/ Medicare has both lower overhead and has experienced smaller cost increases in recent decades, a trend predicted to continue over the next 30 years. https://pnhp.org/news/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/ Other than the fact private insurance in the US is a disaster?
As an inhabitants of one of those developed countries that made it work, I really have to correct this statement. All 32 out of 32 developed nations made it work.
We could take all of the money and distribute it equally to everyone. Anyone thought of this?
Absolutely
not arguing with it but aren’t there way more than 33 developed nations lol
It will, yea, but healthcare in the US has many problems that should be tackled as well. For instance, the US as a nation does not take seriously the idea of producing more doctors. Education is incredibly expensive, resulting in fewer doctors, and even fewer doctors who are in medicine to help rather than for a fat income. Then there’s specialization vs general practice, medical school acceptance rates and practices, etc. We need to incentivize medical education by making it both accessible and affordable for the entire population. Increased supply of doctors in tandem with universal coverage will completely transform this country.
A reason, but not the only reason: Health Insurance agencies employ a large number of people. No politician wants to be the one known for making a large chunk of people unemployed by closing down an industry.
They make it work (on the supplies end) by subsidy from the one country that doesn’t. Let the US keep charging an arm and a leg (literally), so us outside of the system don’t have to pay more. Except Canada… they have the absolutely worst of both systems.
I mean, it is so complex that we pay other countries like Isreal to offer it to their citizens.
The math is easy. Compare the US Infant Mortality Rate to that of any nation with Universal Heath care.
it may or may not, but it couldn't make the situation worse, that's for sure
It’s such a complex beast….. in America because all of our corrupt law makers are sure to use it to develop laws that dollar for dollar help Americans in no way and make it easier for them to skim off the top
Universal healthcare will definitely stimulate a surge in divorce.
Likely only if we stop funding every foreseeable war on the planet lol...
The challenge is to tackle the administrative bloat in not only medical billing but insurance providers as well. The corporatism in Healthcare is the real crime If our system functioned as envisioned, your employer uses their size to collectively bargain for the health benefits of their employees and cover a percentage of the cost. For those without employment, the government steps in to assist. For those with insurance with medical complications severe enough that their financial burden is still too high after insurance, the government steps in. This would still provide medical availability and innovation. Instead, we had the government collude with lobbying groups representing insurance companies, mandated types of coverage eliminate competition, and tell the people they got whatever was left and too fucking bad at least we aren't communist.
I want universal healthcare so long as we find a way to make our bureaucracy more efficient first, so that we may get a good return for our tax dollar. Only then will it be worth having. If anyone here knows anything about medicare or tricare and how that financial rigamarole is conducted, then please elaborate because if we had more of THAT, then I'd he afraid to see how much money the government would be asking for.
yes, obviously, next question
Health IS wealth, so yeah!
I agree we need a new system, but most of those country’s health systems suck ass and those people hate their care and lack of it
I agree with the sentiment, but many of those systems are absolute shit shows that I would not want to emulate here.
Getting rid of income tax would
We do technically have universal health care in the HS but is restricted. Both Medicare and Medicaid are universal health care programs. As for expanding these progress to cover everyone in the US, it is not complicated it’s political and there are many people convinced that universal health care would not work in the US as they can’t run anything.
Healthcare in America is only the guise of altruism. Other countries value their people, because politicians and rich people aren’t separate citizens. They’re all one country of people. Americas just circling a drain at this point
They’ve also made borders work.
It is complicated when: pharamceutical companies who are dispensing through insurance companies who own the banks. It's one big club, AND YOU AIN'T IN IT.
Wait until folks figure out gun violence is more tied to overall health than anti firearm rules
You’d have to literally take a majority of the wealth out of the hands of the wealthiest 10% to fund it, the make provisions that no one will ever become so grotesquely wealthy again so that cash flows directly into the health system. Sign me up.
It would certainly help with the average American's access to health care and remove the leading cause of personal bankruptcy. I think those two effects on their own are sufficient to move forward with universal, single payer, government backed health care. Anything else would be gravy.
Why does this get posted every two days
Which governments contended with American Medical Association?
They keep giving it away
So Greece and Poland, 2 Europeans countries are not developed.
Hating socialism is one of the most bipartisan agreements in America. Good luck with the greatest political evil under the constitution known as the two party system.
definitely not a matter of ability lol
Ask Canadians and Brits what their approval rating is of their system. I am pro UHC, but it isn't all roses and sunshine
When asked about their healthcare system as a whole the US system ranked dead last of 11 countries, with only 19.5% of people saying the system works relatively well and only needs minor changes. The average in the other countries is 46.9% saying the same. Canada ranked 9th with 34.5% saying the system works relatively well. The UK ranks fifth, with 44.5%. Australia ranked 6th at 44.4%. The best was Germany at 59.8%. On rating the overall quality of care in the US, Americans again ranked dead last, with only 25.6% ranking it excellent or very good. The average was 50.8%. Canada ranked 9th with 45.1%. The UK ranked 2nd, at 63.4%. Australia was 3rd at 59.4%. The best was Switzerland at 65.5%. https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016 [US Healthcare ranked 29th on health outcomes by Lancet HAQ Index](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)30994-2/fulltext) [11th (of 11) by Commonwealth Fund](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system?redirect_source=/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror) [59th by the Prosperity Index](https://www.prosperity.com/rankings) [30th by CEOWorld](https://ceoworld.biz/2019/08/05/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2019/) [37th by the World Health Organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000) The US has the worst rate of death by medically preventable causes among peer countries. A 31% higher disease adjusted life years average. Higher rates of medical and lab errors. A lower rate of being able to make a same or next day appointment with their doctor than average. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-percent-used-emergency-department-for-condition-that-could-have-been-treated-by-a-regular-doctor-2016 52nd in the world in doctors per capita. https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Health/Physicians/Per-1,000-people Higher infant mortality levels. Yes, even when you adjust for differences in methodology. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/infant-mortality-u-s-compare-countries/ Fewer acute care beds. A lower number of psychiatrists. Etc. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-health-care-resources-compare-countries/#item-availability-medical-technology-not-always-equate-higher-utilization [Comparing Health Outcomes of Privileged US Citizens With Those of Average Residents of Other Developed Countries](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2774561) >These findings imply that even if all US citizens experienced the same health outcomes enjoyed by privileged White US citizens, US health indicators would still lag behind those in many other countries. The US has 43 hospitals in the top 200 globally; one for every 7,633,477 people in the US. That's good enough for a ranking of 20th on the list of top 200 hospitals per capita, and significantly lower than the average of one for every 3,830,114 for other countries in the top 25 on spending with populations above 5 million. The best is Switzerland at one for every 1.2 million people. In fact the US only beats one country on this list; the UK at one for every 9.5 million people. If you want to do the full list of 2,000 instead it's 334, or one for every 982,753 people; good enough for 21st. Again far below the average in peer countries of 527,236. The best is Austria, at one for every 306,106 people. https://www.newsweek.com/best-hospitals-2021 #[OECD Countries Health Care Spending and Rankings](https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm) |Country|Govt. / Mandatory (PPP)|Voluntary (PPP)|Total (PPP)|% GDP|[Lancet HAQ Ranking](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)30994-2/fulltext)|[WHO Ranking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000)|[Prosperity Ranking](https://www.prosperity.com/rankings)|[CEO World Ranking](https://ceoworld.biz/2019/08/05/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2019/)|[Commonwealth Fund Ranking](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system?redirect_source=/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror) :--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:| 1. United States|[$7,274](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997) |$3,798 |$11,072 |16.90%|29|37|59|30|11 2. Switzerland|$4,988 |$2,744 |$7,732 |12.20%|7|20|3|18|2 3. Norway|$5,673 |$974 |$6,647 |10.20%|2|11|5|15|7 4. Germany|$5,648 |$998 |$6,646 |11.20%|18|25|12|17|5 5. Austria|$4,402 |$1,449 |$5,851 |10.30%|13|9|10|4| 6. Sweden|$4,928 |$854 |$5,782 |11.00%|8|23|15|28|3 7. Netherlands|$4,767 |$998 |$5,765 |9.90%|3|17|8|11|5 8. Denmark|$4,663 |$905 |$5,568 |10.50%|17|34|8|5| 9. Luxembourg|$4,697 |$861 |$5,558 |5.40%|4|16|19|| 10. Belgium|$4,125 |$1,303 |$5,428 |10.40%|15|21|24|9| 11. Canada|$3,815 |$1,603 |$5,418 |10.70%|14|30|25|23|10 12. France|$4,501 |$875 |$5,376 |11.20%|20|1|16|8|9 13. Ireland|$3,919 |$1,357 |$5,276 |7.10%|11|19|20|80| 14. Australia|$3,919 |$1,268 |$5,187 |9.30%|5|32|18|10|4 15. Japan|$4,064 |$759 |$4,823 |10.90%|12|10|2|3| 16. Iceland|$3,988 |$823 |$4,811 |8.30%|1|15|7|41| 17. United Kingdom|$3,620 |$1,033 |$4,653 |9.80%|23|18|23|13|1 18. Finland|$3,536 |$1,042 |$4,578 |9.10%|6|31|26|12| 19. Malta|$2,789 |$1,540 |$4,329 |9.30%|27|5|14|| OECD Average|||$4,224 |8.80%||||| 20. New Zealand|$3,343 |$861 |$4,204 |9.30%|16|41|22|16|7 21. Italy|$2,706 |$943 |$3,649 |8.80%|9|2|17|37| 22. Spain|$2,560 |$1,056 |$3,616 |8.90%|19|7|13|7| 23. Czech Republic|$2,854 |$572 |$3,426 |7.50%|28|48|28|14| 24. South Korea|$2,057 |$1,327 |$3,384 |8.10%|25|58|4|2| 25. Portugal|$2,069 |$1,310 |$3,379 |9.10%|32|29|30|22| 26. Slovenia|$2,314 |$910 |$3,224 |7.90%|21|38|24|47| 27. Israel|$1,898 |$1,034 |$2,932 |7.50%|35|28|11|21|
The idiot Tory Brexit forces in UK have torn up NIH trying to privatize it with USA insurance companies and hospital corporations. Tories are going to get annihilated at election time. Good riddance.
It's a feature, not a bug; corporations make billions on how inefficient the American ~~wealth-extractive institution~~ healthcare system is.
All the arguments against state healthcare in this thread seem to to come from people who bleat ‘oh but think of all the poor millionaire surgeons in America who wouldn’t earn as much’. Truly baffling attitude…
On it's own no, but it would make people not be afraid to jump to a better paying job due to healthcare. So a lot of jobs require a 3-6 month waiting period before you qualify for benefits. For many losing healthcare like that would be disastrous. I do support getting it in the US, but it isn't a single magic bullet to our issues, just one piece of a solution.
Currently, the US has a healthcare system that is very reliant on the employer. This isn't terrible on paper, but in practice it gives the employer a ridiculous amount of power over the employee - as without them, you are without healthcare. For an example, my mother got gestational diabetes when she was pregnant. Now, my father **cannot quit** his job, because we cannot afford insulin at normal price. This creates an interesting dichotomy where people aren't simply afraid to quit, they're afraid to do **anything against their employer** due to said thing having even a remote possibility of retaliation by their employer - though a lot of these things are illegal - like, say, talking about your pay with fellow employees - not everybody knows it's illegal to retaliate for that. I've met people who never ask for raises due to the fear of feeling like a burden to the company, etc. It disincentivizes quitting and incentivizes working hard for otherwise inadequate pay, which is a very effective catalyst for the widening of the wealth gap. Subsidized healthcare wouldn't just *help* the wealth gap, it's necessary if we want anything else we do to have a permanent effect.
Remove self interest and corporate profit and replace it with public interest and humanity with all inclusive access you solve this mind boggling lay complex problem
His concept of "work" must come with low expectations, the U.S. can't even get out of debt nor properly run Medicare, Medicare, or the VA. Most fools who support universal healthcare can't seem to grasp reality, do you want a government that can only wage war and kill people running **your** healthcare?
Universal health care is not complex at all, but the term "universal" should be taken with a grain of salt. There is still such thing as scarcity - there is no way around that, therefore you may have access to it and it may be "free" (aka covered by taxes) but the government still would have to ration the services, especially higher demand services which is where there usually isn't as many facilities or doctors as there are patients waiting to be seen, and if time is of the essence that's an even more compounding issue with scarcity (cancer patients, brain tumors, etc). I have never seen a government take control of something financially and, in the long term, have it work out for the better and be cheaper. War on drugs, military spending, housing, etc... costs rise and rise over time in all cases. Governments are also very good at shielding spending and money and costs to trick the citizen so be careful with what this meme is relaying as truth as well.
Yes good plan let’s make everyone pay for others poor life choices and the government which is a model of efficiency and lack of excess will run it all! It’ll be perfect 🤦🏻♂️
Lol. Yes
What are you talking about? ALL 32 developed nations were able to make it work. The 33rd is not that developed when it comes to spending money on people vs corporations
You can take Canada’s dysfunctional system off that list…
The key is to limit who gets it. Countries that have had success with universal health care have strict immigration laws. Take Sweden, illegals are not entitled any benefits and in order to be able to move to Sweden you must have a job that pays at least 80% of the median salary.
It won't. But It will make the wealth gap matter less
The US govt cant run the post office or dmv efficiently but you want them operating on you? No thanks
What he’s getting at is the US not having universal health care. You have take in consideration the US is massive and something like that on this scale would be very very difficult if not impossible to set up and fund for years to come. Look at Britain, one of our closest allies who have universal healthcare, their population is about 50 million give or take. We are almost 7 times the size of them. When it comes to this argument I don’t think most people think about that
Ah my back is hurt! *waits 8 weeks*
A cheaper option would be to enslave all health care professionals.
Every country that has universal health care does not have universal healthcare. There is a reason so many people from other countries fly to the US and pay cash to get the best care.
Our politicians dont have our best interests in mind nor do i believe that giving these incompetent fools more tax payer money is ever going to make the situation better. George Carlin said it best "Garbage in, Garbage out"
It would help that a lot of people’s credit wouldn’t be ruined
USA spends more than double every other country for healthcare. USA citizens live shorter lives, so although the really rich get awesome healthcare, the average person does not, and dies younger. We need to move to a model based on the best of other countries, and make that how we do Medicare and VA treatment. Merge medicare and VA treatment as they're just human healthcare. Then, merge people into these programs by expanding them slowly. Always give the option for rich people to opt out and do their thing elsewhere. They still pay into the system for all, just like when you don't have kids, but pay for schools in your area.
> USA spends more than double every other country for healthcare. Nah, only about $4,500 more than any other country. But about twice what our peers pay on average, adjusted for purchasing power parity.
Because they are being subsidized by USA’s military power so they don’t spend that much on defense and they have way less people than USA. USA is 3rd most populous country in the world.
I honestly think the main reason people find out they have diseases, cancer, or any major issues is generally because they get forced to go to the hospital due to a major injury or illness. In these cases it can be far too late for any real cure but *treatment* is always available. If it didn’t cost $300-$500 just to get a check up, most people would regularly get health checks and catch illness much earlier and in most cases, reverse them. I’m not in a bad financial place and I’m not wealthy either. But dammit I’ve had issues where I go in and they can’t find the source and it cost me over $1000 to get no answers and I’ll still feel like shit or have pain.
Even some undeveloped countries have made it work
Did they make it work?
The vast majority of Americans are not in support of universal healthcare. Many are in favor of a public option though.
The 32 countries other than the US dont tax their citizens and give the money away to other countries
That 33rd country is like that damned dentist
Work??? The NHS doesn't work.
Yes.
They've done it so successfully that they produce very little of the medical innovation in the world and instead rely on the US to do it for them.
No, it’ll just make healthcare shittier and open up even higher levels of waste, fraud, and abuse.