I'm not claiming other countries systems are a mess at all.
I am defending accusations that HC in the U.S. is somehow subpar.
The oft-cited WHO data is heavily based on a metric of "equitable access to care". This is the U.S. HC system's greatest fault since we have a high number of uninsured. Claiming that in and of itself is rationale for a single payer system or a national HC system does not follow. There are other means to improve access to coverage that don't rely on single payer or national provision.
The second criticism of U.S. HC is the cost is high relative to other countries. Again, the problem doesn't point to the cure. If you look at HC metrics for those that receive care the U.S. is at the top. You get what you pay for. Additionally, the U.S. disproportionately pays for medical advances.
Bottomline, if you are insured and get sick in the U.S. there is no better country in the world to receive care.
If you want to argue equity, that is one issue. If you want to argue pure quality of care for those who get it then the U.S. is at the top.
No one wants people to be denied care. The core question is what do you sacrifice to ensure everyone gets care and further, how important is it to you that everyone gets the same care.
The fault of the current U.S. system is not quality, it is access. Solving access does not require single payer nor government provision.
Wow. It took some time to find actual debate again in this thread.
The US, the richest country in the world, has among the worst health metrics of any developed country. Despite this, we spend almost double per capita on health care on most NHS systems. That is subpar in a big way for the world's largest economy.
"Access to care" is a critical metric. In fact, we already pay too much AND we certainly don't provide equal access. The WHO
of course uses this as it is justly a critical metric BUT a host of other metrics are weighted as well. Access IS NOT even close to the only problem, but it is a big one.
Concerning the "if you are insured, there is no better care" I'm wondering where you assume this from. Our cancer survival rates are among the best; for other big diseases, among the worst. It doesn't seem to wash. I'm not sure cancer has overtaken cardiovascular problems, for instance.
If you "get what you pay for" then why are all the other NHS systems paying less and getting more? And moreover, supporting the entire population.
Finally, I don't know an NHS system that doesn't have the choice of private insurance. In fact, I believe in England if you pay for private insurance, you get some tax knocked off. This argument is a red herring.
By the way, I'm considering peppering my monologues with "hobnail boot" as well as "behind the woodshed." Be prepared. :thumbsup: